5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
AP wire wrote:
DETROIT – A sleeping 7-year-old girl was shot and killed when an officer's gun went off while Detroit police were searching a duplex for a suspect in the slaying of a teenager, a police official said.
Assistant Chief Ralph Godbee said at a news conference Sunday that Aiyana Jones was hit in the neck by a single bullet and died at a hospital. Police said the girl was sleeping on a couch when she was shot.
"This is any parent's worst nightmare. It also is any police officer's worst nightmare," Godbee said.
Godbee said officers with the department's Special Response Team set off a flash grenade as they entered the apartment with their guns drawn about 12:40 a.m. Sunday with a warrant to look for a suspect in the Friday slaying of a 17-year-old boy.
The lead officer encountered a 46-year-old woman immediately inside the front room of the house and "some level of physical contact" ensued during which the officer's gun went off, Godbee said. The officers had identified themselves as police, he said.
Charles Jones, Aiyana's father, told the Detroit News the woman Godbee referred to was his mother and the child's grandmother.
"They came into my house with a flash grenade and a bullet," Jones said. "They say my mother resisted them, that she tried to take an officer's gun. My mother had never been in handcuffs in her life. They killed my baby, and I want someone to tell the truth."
Jones told the Detroit Free Press that after hearing the explosive and gunshot, he rushed into the room where his daughter had been sleeping. He said police forced him to lie on the ground, with his face in his daughter's blood.
Godbee said the shooting was being investigated and all information was preliminary. The officer was put on paid administrative leave, he said. Police do not believe the gun was fired intentionally, he said.
"We cannot undo what occurred this morning," Godbee said. "All we can do is to pledge an open and full investigation and to support Aiyana's family in whatever way they may be willing to accept from us at this time."
Jones said he was trying not to be angry but wanted the story to be told.
"This was a wrongful death," he said.
The officers had a search warrant and were looking for a 34-year-old man suspected in the shooting death of 17-year-old Jarean Blake.
Blake, a student at Southeastern High School, was gunned down Friday by a liquor store in front of his girlfriend. Blake stumbled across the street, collapsed and died, police said.
Officers arrested the suspect during the search, Godbee said. Jones said the suspect wasn't in his apartment but one upstairs that officers raided at the same time.
Godbee would not comment on newspaper reports that neighbors told police there were children in the house and showed them toys in the front yard.
"This is a tragedy of unspeakable magnitude to Aiyana's parents, family and all those who loved her," Godbee said. "It is a tragedy we also feel very deeply throughout the ranks of the Detroit Police Department."
The Detroit Coalition Against Police Brutality called the girl's death "the pain of pains" in a statement issued Sunday and questioned what protocols police used in the raid. The coalition held a candlelight vigil Sunday evening at the home where she was shot.
Apparently, rudimentary intelligence isn't a LEO requirement.
5534
Post by: dogma
You just figured that out now?
That said, being Detroit, there was about a 1 in 3 chance that the place was abandoned.
5470
Post by: sebster
In the other case it was armed entry into the house of a guy suspected of selling dope. In this case it was to arrest a dude suspected of killing someone. In the latter case it seems reasonable that officers would have their weapons drawn.
What happened is horrible, of course, but I'm not sure the police policy is necessarily wrong.
14852
Post by: Fateweaver
If there was a struggle with the officer who had his gun drawn it's entirely possible for it to go off. Depending on the gun some of them have a trigger pull as light as a few pounds.
If the suspect was considered to be a threat (obvious from the flash-bang shot into the house) of course they go in with guns drawn. If you get intel that indicates there might be hostiles in a building you don't walk in with hands in pockets, whistling "Dixie" and acting as if nothing is wrong.
In this case I'm sure it'll be investigated down to what the officers had for breakfast that morning. Also, if the officer wasn't lying and the woman did engage in a physical altercation with an armed peace officer than she should get a Darwin as only a person with very little mental capacity (not making fun of the handicapped but those with the mental capacity to make obvious choices but don't) would decide to tangle with an armed cop (especially when he's got more like him watching his back).
14869
Post by: Wrexasaur
Fateweaver wrote:In this case I'm sure it'll be investigated down to what the officers had for breakfast that morning. Also, if the officer wasn't lying and the woman did engage in a physical altercation with an armed peace officer than she should get a Darwin as only a person with very little mental capacity (not making fun of the handicapped but those with the mental capacity to make obvious choices but don't) would decide to tangle with an armed cop (especially when he's got more like him watching his back).
I know several parents that would go absolutely ape-gak, at a gun being drawn near their child. In this case, the child was shot, and the mentality was proven to be sound.
No Darwin award here, no matter the circumstances, and from neither side. It's a very depressing story.
8800
Post by: Cannerus_The_Unbearable
I doubt he would shoot her intentionally without cause, but it seems like it should be harder to get a gun to go off than wrestling an old lady. Seems like you might have a pretty good idea who is in the place you're about to flashbang as well. I don't know. I'd love to blindly respect law enforcement because their jobs suck much of the time, but that isn't realistic and it's hard to draw the line.
17349
Post by: SilverMK2
I'm shocked they didn't plant the gun on the dad or grandma - what are the police coming to these days when they can botch even a simple cover up?
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
I think there's blame for everyone involved in this story, other than the poor kid who got killed.
If you're hanging out with people that are of the ilk that would be suspected for gunning down teenagers you should expect the police to kick in your door occasionally. The problem with the Cops' behavior is pretty self-evident.
17349
Post by: SilverMK2
There are guys who live a couple of apartments down from me who seem to constantly smoke dope - I have nothing to do with them and netiher, as far as I am aware, does anyone else in the building I live in.
Just because someone is a bit dodgy, does not mean that everyone around them is too.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
SilverMK2 wrote:There are guys who live a couple of apartments down from me who seem to constantly smoke dope - I have nothing to do with them and netiher, as far as I am aware, does anyone else in the building I live in.
Just because someone is a bit dodgy, does not mean that everyone around them is too.
Right, but the cops didn't think that the accused murderer was two doors down from the house they went into. They thought he was in the house that they went into.
17349
Post by: SilverMK2
Monster Rain wrote:Right, but the cops didn't think that the accused murderer was two doors down from the house they went into. They thought he was in the house that they went into.
I have just re-read your comment and I didn't read it correctly the first time (d'oh!).
Sorry!
514
Post by: Orlanth
Sometimes the police have cause to enter a property with drawn guns. even in the Uk with an unarmed police force there are armed units, and somwetimes the first officer through the door has an MP5. This isnt our equivlant of SWAT, just armed police, we have an all or nothing approach to what coppers should be armed with, which makes sense frankly.
Anyway, anytime you have armed police you have the risk of accidents. Yes look at the incident, see what went wrong. But bottom line is: bangsticks sometimes go off.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
Monster Rain wrote:I think there's blame for everyone involved in this story, other than the poor kid who got killed.
If you're hanging out with people that are of the ilk that would be suspected for gunning down teenagers you should expect the police to kick in your door occasionally. The problem with the Cops' behavior is pretty self-evident.
I think that the blame lies pretty much completely with the police. Coming up with a rational reason why a cop needs to shoot an unarmed child is pretty tough.
What's your address, again? I can have your "friendly" neighbor call in a tip to your local PD about how you're dealing drugs, and now I saw you with a gun the one time I came over Enjoy being swatted and hope you don't have any kids or pets...
____
SilverMK2 wrote:There are guys who live a couple of apartments down from me who seem to constantly smoke dope - I have nothing to do with them and netiher, as far as I am aware, does anyone else in the building I live in.
You better pray the cops don't get the apartment numbers mixed up when they come in guns blazing...
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
JohnHwangDD wrote:Monster Rain wrote:I think there's blame for everyone involved in this story, other than the poor kid who got killed.
If you're hanging out with people that are of the ilk that would be suspected for gunning down teenagers you should expect the police to kick in your door occasionally. The problem with the Cops' behavior is pretty self-evident.
Coming up with a rational reason why a cop needs to shoot an unarmed child is pretty tough.
Yeah, it would be if that's what I was saying. At all. 
Honestly, did you even read my post?
14852
Post by: Fateweaver
How does "gun accidentally going off" equate to "cop needing to shoot an unarmed child?" Guns do go off on accident, you know?
181
Post by: gorgon
I read your post, and it's pretty tough to see how it bears any relevance to the topic unless you're trying to claim there was some level of justification here.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
gorgon wrote:I read your post, and it's pretty tough to see how it bears any relevance to the topic unless you're trying to claim there was some level of justification here.
I'm going outdoors now.
Apparently having a problem with people who have young children in their home harboring murder suspects makes one a pawn of the the fascists. Not to mention that right in the post this... this... person claims to have read I also fault the police. Sweet fething christ.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
Monster Rain wrote:JohnHwangDD wrote:Monster Rain wrote:I think there's blame for everyone involved in this story, other than the poor kid who got killed.
Coming up with a rational reason why a cop needs to shoot an unarmed child is pretty tough.
Yeah, it would be if that's what I was saying. At all.
Honestly, did you even read my post?
I quoted it before, and will now highlight it now in bold.
Go ahead and explain what the family did that justifies the cop shooting their kid to death. And then making the father lie down in his kid's blood.
Oh yeah - "unarmed mother resisting arrest" isn't an acceptable answer.
221
Post by: Frazzled
It is if she grabbed the gun.
14852
Post by: Fateweaver
Hmm, perhaps the whole thing would have been avoided if the cops had brought flowers and chocolates.
Lure the teen killer out of hiding with chocolate. I mean, who can resist chocolate, right?
5394
Post by: reds8n
JohnHwangDD wrote:
Oh yeah - "unarmed mother resisting arrest" isn't an acceptable answer.
It's an unarmed Grandmother in fact. One who, at just past midnight, had experienced a flashbang grenade go off at close range. She must have been a truly terrifying opponent to face in close combat.
I take it the family will be entitled to compensation here of some sort yes ? I assume at least the "city" would pick up, at the very least, funeral expenses and the like ? I must confess to next to no idea how those sort of things are done over the pond, hyperbloic lawsuit coverage aside of course.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
JohnHwangDD wrote:Monster Rain wrote:JohnHwangDD wrote:Monster Rain wrote:I think there's blame for everyone involved in this story, other than the poor kid who got killed.
Coming up with a rational reason why a cop needs to shoot an unarmed child is pretty tough.
Yeah, it would be if that's what I was saying. At all.
Honestly, did you even read my post?
I quoted it before, and will now highlight it now in bold.
Go ahead and explain what the family did that justifies the cop shooting their kid to death. And then making the father lie down in his kid's blood.
Oh yeah - "unarmed mother resisting arrest" isn't an acceptable answer.
Here, I made the part red that you seem to be missing. That should help.
Oh yeah...
Monster Rain wrote:I think there's blame for everyone involved in this story, other than the poor kid who got killed.
If you're hanging out with people that are of the ilk that would be suspected for gunning down teenagers you should expect the police to kick in your door occasionally. The problem with the Cops' behavior is pretty self-evident.
The explanation for my position(green!) was in the post that you originally quoted. Though you only quoted part of it, and then asked for the very explanation that you left out. Where's your crack pipe? I'm gonna smash it. 
221
Post by: Frazzled
An investigation is being made. Presupposing anything is not appropriate with like, no facts at all.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
Monster Rain wrote:JohnHwangDD wrote:Monster Rain wrote:JohnHwangDD wrote:Monster Rain wrote:I think there's blame for everyone involved in this story, other than the poor kid who got killed.
Coming up with a rational reason why a cop needs to shoot an unarmed child is pretty tough.
Yeah, it would be if that's what I was saying. At all.
Honestly, did you even read my post?
I quoted it before, and will now highlight it now in bold.
Go ahead and explain what the family did that justifies the cop shooting their kid to death. And then making the father lie down in his kid's blood.
Oh yeah - "unarmed mother resisting arrest" isn't an acceptable answer.
Here, I made the part red that you seem to be missing. That should help.
I got that. You're still blaming the family for the kid's death.
I decline to have anything further to do with you.
14852
Post by: Fateweaver
reds8n wrote:JohnHwangDD wrote:
Oh yeah - "unarmed mother resisting arrest" isn't an acceptable answer.
It's an unarmed Grandmother in fact. One who, at just past midnight, had experienced a flashbang grenade go off at close range. She must have been a truly terrifying opponent to face in close combat.
I take it the family will be entitled to compensation here of some sort yes ? I assume at least the "city" would pick up, at the very least, funeral expenses and the like ? I must confess to next to no idea how those sort of things are done over the pond, hyperbloic lawsuit coverage aside of course.
She apparently got in a physical scuffle with an armed officer. The gun most likely went off on accident. Common sense would tell you not to go for an officers gun or gun arm or the officer himself. Was the officer supposed to just ignore her and let her keep attacking him? Maybe he tried to holster his sidearm and it went off?
There will be a civil suit I'm sure. The US is great for this "entitlement" mentality that allows criminals and lazy fethers to get millions of dollars for doing nothing at all. Like the McD's lawsuit over the hot coffee and many others of that nature.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
JohnHwangDD wrote:Monster Rain wrote:JohnHwangDD wrote:Monster Rain wrote:JohnHwangDD wrote:Monster Rain wrote:I think there's blame for everyone involved in this story, other than the poor kid who got killed.
Coming up with a rational reason why a cop needs to shoot an unarmed child is pretty tough.
Yeah, it would be if that's what I was saying. At all.
Honestly, did you even read my post?
I quoted it before, and will now highlight it now in bold.
Go ahead and explain what the family did that justifies the cop shooting their kid to death. And then making the father lie down in his kid's blood.
Oh yeah - "unarmed mother resisting arrest" isn't an acceptable answer.
Here, I made the part red that you seem to be missing. That should help.
I got that. You're still blaming the family for the kid's death.
I decline to have anything further to do with you.
Best news I've had all day.
Clearly, such a reasonable person's friendship would be a great loss. Silly me, thinking that since there's still an investigation going on that this might just be a sensationalized news item that everyone is going to forget about long before the actual facts of the case are discovered.
14852
Post by: Fateweaver
JohnHwangDD wrote:Monster Rain wrote:JohnHwangDD wrote:Monster Rain wrote:JohnHwangDD wrote:Monster Rain wrote:I think there's blame for everyone involved in this story, other than the poor kid who got killed.
Coming up with a rational reason why a cop needs to shoot an unarmed child is pretty tough.
Yeah, it would be if that's what I was saying. At all.
Honestly, did you even read my post?
I quoted it before, and will now highlight it now in bold.
Go ahead and explain what the family did that justifies the cop shooting their kid to death. And then making the father lie down in his kid's blood.
Oh yeah - "unarmed mother resisting arrest" isn't an acceptable answer.
Here, I made the part red that you seem to be missing. That should help.
I got that. You're still blaming the family for the kid's death.
I decline to have anything further to do with you.
You blame the cop who's gun ACCIDENTALLY went off because some woman with the brains of a rock decided to attack an armed police officer.
I could definitely see you not ever being a cop.
5394
Post by: reds8n
I understand the gun went off on accident, I fail to see how, realistically, a grandmother in the situation above, would present any significant threat to any police officer who was not in a coma on a life support machine.
"Common sense" tells you that sholdn't have been an issue at all.
I understand accidents will happen and that guns are always going to have a certain " oh  " factor when they are in play. BUt that's why we train people to use them and, when things do go wrong, that people are held accountable for their actions.
I don't for one minute think the officer in question felt anything other than incredibly wretched over how things occured, I doubt him and his buddies were high fivin' each other over killing a 7 year old child. But that is what happened, ultimately.
The US is great for this "entitlement" mentality that allows criminals and lazy fethers to get millions of dollars for doing nothing at all.
.. and for providing compensation for entirely innocent peope who have their lives ruined through no fault of their own.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
Fateweaver wrote:JohnHwangDD wrote:
I got that. You're still blaming the family for the kid's death.
I decline to have anything further to do with you.
You blame the cop who's gun ACCIDENTALLY went off because some woman with the brains of a rock decided to attack an armed police officer. I could definitely see you not ever being a cop.
Hell yes, he's the one with the gun. I could definitely see myself shooting one in cold blood.
3567
Post by: usernamesareannoying
reds8n wrote: I understand the gun went off on accident, I fail to see how, realistically, a grandmother in the situation above, would present any significant threat to any police officer who was not in a coma on a life support machine.
did they say how old this grandmother was? i can think of some seriously scary looking late 50 early 60 "grandmothers".
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
reds8n wrote: I understand the gun went off on accident, I fail to see how, realistically, a grandmother in the situation above, would present any significant threat to any police officer who was not in a coma on a life support machine.
Don't think that just because someone is old that they can't harm you. Part of police training is being made to understand that you can be shot in the face by an old man at a routine traffic stop or stabbed in the neck by the wife of the man that you are arresting for Domestic Violence. Imagine then what you would have to expect from the people inside of a house that you are entering looking for an extremely violent person.
14852
Post by: Fateweaver
reds8n wrote: I understand the gun went off on accident, I fail to see how, realistically, a grandmother in the situation above, would present any significant threat to any police officer who was not in a coma on a life support machine.
"Common sense" tells you that sholdn't have been an issue at all.
I understand accidents will happen and that guns are always going to have a certain " oh " factor when they are in play. BUt that's why we train people to use them and, when things do go wrong, that people are held accountable for their actions.
I don't for one minute think the officer in question felt anything other than incredibly wretched over how things occured, I doubt him and his buddies were high fivin' each other over killing a 7 year old child. But that is what happened, ultimately.
The US is great for this "entitlement" mentality that allows criminals and lazy fethers to get millions of dollars for doing nothing at all.
.. and for providing compensation for entirely innocent peope who have their lives ruined through no fault of their own.
Sorry but wrongful death suits are bs. If a family member was killed by someone, wether accidentally or through homicide, I wouldn't demand money to compensate. If it was an accident I'd expect an apology and accept the fact that the person is already, hopefully, an emotion wreck inside and will be their entire life. If it was on purpose I'd hope the court would do the right thing. Expecting money for a loved one dying just tells me that the person in question has a dollar amount that will can be used to buy off your hate. If it's someone near and dear to you there SHOULD not be a high enough price that their death is worth.
Accidents happen. Life goes on.
3567
Post by: usernamesareannoying
JohnHwangDD wrote:Hell yes, he's the one with the gun.
I could definitely see myself shooting one in cold blood.
your such a mixed bag JDD. sometimes i agree with you but sometimes youre an ass. of course i mean that in the friendliest way possible...
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
usernamesareannoying wrote:reds8n wrote: I understand the gun went off on accident, I fail to see how, realistically, a grandmother in the situation above, would present any significant threat to any police officer who was not in a coma on a life support machine.
did they say how old this grandmother was? i can think of some seriously scary looking late 50 early 60 "grandmothers".
If I'm reading this correctly the "grandmother" was 46 years old. Hardly an aged crone by any standard.
221
Post by: Frazzled
usernamesareannoying wrote:reds8n wrote: I understand the gun went off on accident, I fail to see how, realistically, a grandmother in the situation above, would present any significant threat to any police officer who was not in a coma on a life support machine.
did they say how old this grandmother was? i can think of some seriously scary looking late 50 early 60 "grandmothers".
More importantly if she gets into a physical tussel with the officer the weapon can be discharged accidentally, which I believe is what the officer is alleging. Just knocking into him might accidentally do it.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
Frazzled wrote:usernamesareannoying wrote:reds8n wrote: I understand the gun went off on accident, I fail to see how, realistically, a grandmother in the situation above, would present any significant threat to any police officer who was not in a coma on a life support machine.
did they say how old this grandmother was? i can think of some seriously scary looking late 50 early 60 "grandmothers".
More importantly if she gets into a physical tussel with the officer the weapon can be discharged accidentally, which I believe is what the officer is alleging. Just knocking into him might accidentally do it.
If that is what happened, I see the blame scale tipping more and more toward that poor child's "guardians."
14852
Post by: Fateweaver
I think many fail to realize how light a trigger pull some of those pistols have. Most are discharged with as little as 2 pounds of force. That's nothing. Dropping the gun would discharge it. If the officer had his finger inside the trigger guard it could have gotten squeezed. Hell, the woman could have accidentally squeezed the trigger herself.
Again, a teen killer is apparently in the house. They are going to go in hot, not go in with flowers and chocolates.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Fateweaver wrote:I think many fail to realize how light a trigger pull some of those pistols have. Most are discharged with as little as 2 pounds of force. That's nothing. Dropping the gun would discharge it. If the officer had his finger inside the trigger guard it could have gotten squeezed. Hell, the woman could have accidentally squeezed the trigger herself.
Again, a teen killer is apparently in the house. They are going to go in hot, not go in with flowers and chocolates.
2 lb pressure can occur just by breathing. I know.
I am not defending anyone here, other than to say I hink we can rule out intent to take out a small child.
181
Post by: gorgon
Monster Rain wrote:I think there's blame for everyone involved in this story, other than the poor kid who got killed.
If you're hanging out with people that are of the ilk that would be suspected for gunning down teenagers you should expect the police to kick in your door occasionally. The problem with the Cops' behavior is pretty self-evident.
The explanation for my position(green!) was in the post that you originally quoted. Though you only quoted part of it, and then asked for the very explanation that you left out. Where's your crack pipe? I'm gonna smash it.
No one thinks you're clicking your heels over a child getting shot. What I'm reacting to is that you're insinuating the child was at higher risk of this kind of incident because of her parent. But I dunno that should have anything to do with whether a sleeping child gets shot by a LEO apparently not in control of his weapon. We're not talking about a shootout in the house that the parent started/escalated.
Not to mention that the parent was only a suspect and therefore may not be guilty. What if you were innocent of but a suspect in a crime and this happened to your family? How would you feel if we came along and said it was a tragedy, "but you know, you were a suspect." You'd say "what the h*ll difference does that make," right?
BTW, stop with the "this...this...person" nonsense, we're having a discussion here.
5394
Post by: reds8n
Monster Rain wrote:
Don't think that just because someone is old that they can't harm you. Part of police training is being made to understand that you can be shot in the face by an old man at a routine traffic stop or stabbed in the neck by the wife of the man that you are arresting for Domestic Violence. Imagine then what you would have to expect from the people inside of a house that you are entering looking for an extremely violent person.
Part of Police training is also about understanding the situation you're walking into, when that includes innocent people -- including children -- are going to be present, you are extra damned careful so as not to harm those not involved.
Seeing as the eventually arrested person wasn't actually found in this apartment at all either it doesn' rt really make the officers involved look better either.
Of course if, as the later link suggests, this isn't what happened and it was, effectively, a random shot fired into the house from outside, the case looks even worse for the authorities.
4056
Post by: Bla_Ze
Wait, keeping your finger on the trigger is detroit police procedure? Anyone know?
221
Post by: Frazzled
Bla_Ze wrote:Wait, keeping your finger on the trigger is detroit police procedure? Anyone know?
Dude, its Detroit. You know Robocop country... 
2700
Post by: dietrich
It's a horrible tragedy. Certainly, the SWAT team's brief didn't include "shoot the little girl." Having said that, read some of Radley Balko's stuff, which is luring me further along the anti-establishment path. I'm pretty sure that a number of posters on this thread would have a violent reaction to a violent entry into their home in the middle of the night. A SWAT raid is like driving 90mph on the interstate - you can do it a lot of the time without incident, but you're just asking for something bad to happen.
Here's better coverage and commentary:
http://www.theagitator.com/2010/05/16/detroit-girl-7-killed-in-police-raid/
And here's some good commentary about how the police are busting down more doors than the boys in Afghanistan.
http://www.theagitator.com/2010/05/14/more-militarized-than-the-military/
There's lots more good stuff on his site. Or depressing stuff, depending on your view.
14852
Post by: Fateweaver
Not necessarily ON the trigger. I can have my finger inside the guard without making contact with the trigger unless I want to. Smart thing to do is not have finger anywhere NEAR the trigger but as has been said it might have went off because of the woman hitting or accidentally squeezing the trigger or it might have been caused by the gun being dropped from the officers hands, hitting the floor and going off.
4056
Post by: Bla_Ze
Still, trigger discipline when raiding a house ought to be procedure, since you have buddies in the firing line.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
gorgon wrote:Monster Rain wrote:I think there's blame for everyone involved in this story, other than the poor kid who got killed.
If you're hanging out with people that are of the ilk that would be suspected for gunning down teenagers you should expect the police to kick in your door occasionally. The problem with the Cops' behavior is pretty self-evident.
The explanation for my position(green!) was in the post that you originally quoted. Though you only quoted part of it, and then asked for the very explanation that you left out. Where's your crack pipe? I'm gonna smash it.
No one thinks you're clicking your heels over a child getting shot. What I'm reacting to is that you're insinuating the child was at higher risk of this kind of incident because of her parent. But I dunno that should have anything to do with whether a sleeping child gets shot by a LEO apparently not in control of his weapon. We're not talking about a shootout in the house.
Not to mention that the parent was only a suspect and therefore may not be guilty. What if you were innocent of but a suspect in a crime and this happened to your family? How would you feel if we came along and said it was a tragedy, "but you know, you were a suspect." You'd say "what the h*ll difference does that make," right?
BTW, stop with the "this...this...person" nonsense, we're having a discussion here.
Yeah, you're right about that last part.
Do you really not see why harboring dangerous criminals might increase your likelihood of the Police storming your house? I'm not insinuating it, I'm straight out saying it. Did you read the part where the guy was in the other place that they entered at the same time? The information the police officers had was good on this one.
If the guy is innocent, then the cops are 100% wrong and so am I. If he isn't then the child's guardians bear a little bit of responsibility for this, particularly if the Grandmother in question physically assaulted the officers...
At a basic level though, you're right. I'm not saying I'm happy about any of this.  It's a horrible thing. I have a daughter about that age, and believe me I can relate. At the same time, I also keep our house devoid of the criminal element which includes my own brother being disallowed from being in my house due to his activities and the activities of his friends.
Are the quotes misbehaving or is it me?
4056
Post by: Bla_Ze
Fateweaver wrote:Not necessarily ON the trigger. I can have my finger inside the guard without making contact with the trigger unless I want to. Smart thing to do is not have finger anywhere NEAR the trigger but as has been said it might have went off because of the woman hitting or accidentally squeezing the trigger or it might have been caused by the gun being dropped from the officers hands, hitting the floor and going off.
It's almost impossible that she squeezed the trigger. The officer although might have done it on reflex if she tried to grab it.
Glocks and M&P 40's have a drop saftey, so that is ruled out, unless the officer was using another model.
Still all these accidental discharges can be avoided, by simple trigger discipline. And THAT failing muzzle awareness.
Granted im not too familitar with USA police procedure.
221
Post by: Frazzled
You already stated the likelihood-she grabbed it, or he did have his finger on the trigger. If you're the entry guy yea your finger's on the trigger.
181
Post by: gorgon
Monster Rain, glad we're ratcheting down the rhetoric here.
Obviously, there's no easy answers here and the whole incident just gets to a lot of philosophical discussions about LE, which is why it's such a good topic for discussion.
I can say if a SWAT team suddenly busted down my door, tossed a flashbang and drew weapons, all with my kid in the house, my first instinct would be a little on the defiant side. Not do-something-stupid defiant mind you, but at least a strong WTF, and not necessarily a split-second submissive dive to the ground with my hands on my head.
And in some instances that might be enough to get me shot. Hence I think there's room to seriously question LE when they do this kind of thing and innocents die.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Yes.
14852
Post by: Fateweaver
Hmm, after some searching I found an article that says according to the State police the shot was fired from OUTSIDE the house, not inside during an altercation like the officers are originally saying.
The plot thickens.
Frazz is right though. Point man usually has finger in guard ready to squeeze. The split second to take finger from outside the guard to pull can mean life or death. I mean if I'm an armed suspect as soon as that door is kicked in I'm going to open fire.
2700
Post by: dietrich
Monster Rain wrote:Do you really not see why harboring dangerous criminals might increase your likelihood of the Police storming your house? I'm not insinuating it, I'm straight out saying it. Did you read the part where the guy was in the other place that they entered at the same time? The information the police officers had was good on this one.
So, it's the family's fault for having an alleged criminal as a neighbor? We don't know the details, but they possibly had absolutely nothing to do with who rented the other half of the duplex. Further, why did the SWAT team enter both sides of the duplex? Did they not know which half the guy lived in?
5394
Post by: reds8n
Fateweaver wrote:Hmm, after some searching I found an article that says according to the State police the shot was fired from OUTSIDE the house, not inside during an altercation like the officers are originally saying.
...err... that's on the previous page of this thread. 
Just as well you've been carefully reading each and every post before responding eh... eh ?
Do you really not see why harboring dangerous criminals might increase your likelihood of the Police storming your house? I'm not insinuating it, I'm straight out saying it. Did you read the part where the guy was in the other place that they entered at the same time? The information the police officers had was good on this one.
Wasn't that good really seeing as how things turned out. Especially seeing as the family here were NOT harbouring a dangerous criminal.
Just Superhuman Grandmothers who, after totally shrugging off the affects of a flashbang grenade late at night when minding their own business in their home, are then wrestling police officers to the ground.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
46 year old "grandmother" does not equal elderly or potentially helpless.
And flashbangs aren't nearly as potent as you're seeming to think when someone enters from a room that could potentially block the effects of the FLASH! part of flashbang...
7116
Post by: Belphegor
Fateweaver: Sorry but wrongful death suits are bs. If a family member was killed by someone, wether accidentally or through homicide, I wouldn't demand money to compensate. If it was an accident I'd expect an apology and accept the fact that the person is already, hopefully, an emotion wreck inside and will be their entire life. If it was on purpose I'd hope the court would do the right thing. Expecting money for a loved one dying just tells me that the person in question has a dollar amount that will can be used to buy off your hate. If it's someone near and dear to you there SHOULD not be a high enough price that their death is worth.
Accidents happen. Life goes on.
Respectfully disagree.
Funerals and all things surrounding are expensive. Resorting everyone's lives that are affected is expensive. It's beyond insult to injury. Not being compensated is simply more unjust injury, especially if the person who was wrongfully killed was the primary or secondary income earner. It's about not screwing over the survivors more than you already have. NOT about getting a quick buck. Really, if you have accidentally wronged someone, just take responsibility and own-up.
5394
Post by: reds8n
Kanluwen wrote:
And flashbangs aren't nearly as potent as you're seeming to think
.
Neither are unarmed, disorientated 46 year old women.
Or, alas, sofas and sleeping 7 year old children.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Belphegor wrote:Fateweaver: Sorry but wrongful death suits are bs. If a family member was killed by someone, wether accidentally or through homicide, I wouldn't demand money to compensate. If it was an accident I'd expect an apology and accept the fact that the person is already, hopefully, an emotion wreck inside and will be their entire life. If it was on purpose I'd hope the court would do the right thing. Expecting money for a loved one dying just tells me that the person in question has a dollar amount that will can be used to buy off your hate. If it's someone near and dear to you there SHOULD not be a high enough price that their death is worth.
Accidents happen. Life goes on.
Respectfully disagree.
Funerals and all things surrounding are expensive. Resorting everyone's lives that are affected is expensive. It's beyond insult to injury. Not being compensated is simply more unjust injury, especially if the person who was wrongfully killed was the primary or secondary income earner. It's about not screwing over the survivors more than you already have. NOT about getting a quick buck. Really, if you have accidentally wronged someone, just take responsibility and own-up.
That's not always true.
Some of these wrongful death/injury suits are ridiculous. You're going to tell me that the robber who fell through a skylight onto a knife and suffered a superficial leg wound somehow deserved the $10.5 million he got in a wrongful injury suit? Or that a widow, with a full time job as the primary income provider deserves something like $1.5 million when her husband was shot during a prison riot?
Yeah. No.
Most cities would immediately take the funeral arrangements out of your hands, even without a civil suit. They own up to their mistakes.
As an aside, that McDonald's "hot coffee" lawsuit was actually a justifiable one. The coffee machine was running at something like 250? degrees Fahrenheit(some ridiculous temperature that was well, well beyond what it should've been as it was busted but McD's didn't want to shell out the money to get it fixed), and the workers knew it without ever warning the customer in question or even providing a sleeve, offering to ice the coffee a bit, etc. The coffee spilled on the customer while in the drive-through, and the woman suffered third degree burns.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
gorgon wrote:Monster Rain, glad we're ratcheting down the rhetoric here.
Obviously, there's no easy answers here and the whole incident just gets to a lot of philosophical discussions about LE, which is why it's such a good topic for discussion.
I can say if a SWAT team suddenly busted down my door, tossed a flashbang and drew weapons, all with my kid in the house, my first instinct would be a little on the defiant side. Not do-something-stupid defiant mind you, but at least a strong WTF, and not necessarily a split-second submissive dive to the ground with my hands on my head.
yeah, I hear you. Also, you have to wonder if you'd even recognize the people kicking in your door as Law Enforcement in the middle of the night when a flashbang just went off...
dietrich wrote:Monster Rain wrote:Do you really not see why harboring dangerous criminals might increase your likelihood of the Police storming your house? I'm not insinuating it, I'm straight out saying it. Did you read the part where the guy was in the other place that they entered at the same time? The information the police officers had was good on this one.
So, it's the family's fault for having an alleged criminal as a neighbor? We don't know the details, but they possibly had absolutely nothing to do with who rented the other half of the duplex. Further, why did the SWAT team enter both sides of the duplex? Did they not know which half the guy lived in?
I know as much as you do. My point may not even relate directly to this case, as the facts currently stand. The ridiculous straw man you've made of my statements isn't constructive. Gorgon and I are trying to keep things civil. Be a pal and help out with that.
This family may just be the victims of having bad neighbors, which is sad... What's also sad, and maybe a bigger issue than this one case is that sometimes a child's parents are bad people or associate with bad people and they pay the price for it and that bums me out.
reds8n wrote:
Wasn't that good really seeing as how things turned out. Especially seeing as the family here were NOT harbouring a dangerous criminal.
If that turns out to be the case, I'll refer you to the second bit of my reply to dietrich. 
The cops had some kind of reason to think that he might be there. I hope for the Department's sake that this was true, otherwise they'll be most deservedly crucified.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
reds8n wrote:Kanluwen wrote:
And flashbangs aren't nearly as potent as you're seeming to think
.
Neither are unarmed, disorientated 46 year old women.
Or, alas, sofas and sleeping 7 year old children.
Do you know what flashbangs do?
I mean really, have any clue at all?
The flash is what really makes them important, due to blinding and disorienting someone.
The "BANG!" is less important, but it also aids due to deafening the persons in question. The bang is also the only part that actually travels through the walls, but even then it can be diluted because of distance from the detonation and intervening materials.
So, at best, the woman was deafened and unarmed.
And attacking a clearly recognizable police officer(since you know, she's not blinded, she can see the Detroit Police Department insignia or the US flag insignia, depending on which side she was on) with a loaded firearm.
But that point seems to be moot either way, since as you pointed out--the shot that killed the kid seems to have came from outside.
Which brings me to a new point, what part of Detroit was this? Because from what I've heard, they've had problems with dickheads taking potshots at the cops.
4056
Post by: Bla_Ze
I have come to the conclusion that the US law enforcement really got some big issues.
Officers are supposed to serve the public, killing a 7yo becuase you wanted to be a split-second faster, is IMO unacceptable.
If your own well being inturudes on the saftey of potential innocent citizens i dont think you are fit yo be a police officer.
Of course i carry a more or less biased oppinion since officers where i come from ask questions first and shoots later.
21678
Post by: Karon
Dumbass GI Joe cops, armed to take down a damn T-REX, come in, and shoot a kid.
I mean come on. I hope that cop goes to jail for the rest of his life. That shouldn't ever happen. His life is already ruined, his dreams haunted with him shooting a baby.
Flakk the police, never liked them.
14852
Post by: Fateweaver
Point man always goes in finger on trigger. Officer safety comes first and foremost.
The shot appears to have come from outside. It might have been someone taking a "free" shot at the officers or it might have been for some reason an officer firing into the house.
It's tragic what happens but when you knowingly hide a criminal in your house expect "not so nice" gak to happen.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
Bla_Ze wrote:I have come to the conclusion that the US law enforcement really got some big issues.
Officers are supposed to serve the public, killing a 7yo becuase you wanted to be a split-second faster, is IMO unacceptable.
If your own well being inturudes on the saftey of potential innocent citizens i dont think you are fit yo be a police officer.
Of course i carry a more or less biased oppinion since officers where i come from ask questions first and shoots later.
Must be nice! Of course, your country is a bit less violent altogether statistically IIRC...
My question would be if while the Police are collecting all of this information surely they could come up with a time to raid the house when the kids are at school or just not around. 
18861
Post by: Sanctjud
As unlikely as it sounds, just because there is 'Police' or 'SWAT' on the clothing doesn't mean they are legit 100% of the time.
This would prob. be one of the begillion things going through their heads after the SWAT entry.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Once again:
It is now seeming that the shot that killed the child came from outside.
If the police were inside, that indicates that they were not the ones who shot the child.
Crazy, right?
14852
Post by: Fateweaver
Karon wrote:Dumbass GI Joe cops, armed to take down a damn T-REX, come in, and shoot a kid.
I mean come on. I hope that cop goes to jail for the rest of his life. That shouldn't ever happen. His life is already ruined, his dreams haunted with him shooting a baby.
Flakk the police, never liked them.
Wow, I don't even know how to respond to this post so I won't.
Ah feth it. Yes, a more logical solution for entering a home where a man shot and killed a teenager earlier is to enter with flowers and chocolates.
Wow, that left me with an upset stomach having to read that post.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Kanluwen wrote:reds8n wrote:Kanluwen wrote:
And flashbangs aren't nearly as potent as you're seeming to think
.
Neither are unarmed, disorientated 46 year old women.
Or, alas, sofas and sleeping 7 year old children.
Do you know what flashbangs do?
I mean really, have any clue at all?
The flash is what really makes them important, due to blinding and disorienting someone.
The "BANG!" is less important, but it also aids due to deafening the persons in question. The bang is also the only part that actually travels through the walls, but even then it can be diluted because of distance from the detonation and intervening materials.
So, at best, the woman was deafened and unarmed.
And attacking a clearly recognizable police officer(since you know, she's not blinded, she can see the Detroit Police Department insignia or the US flag insignia, depending on which side she was on) with a loaded firearm.
But that point seems to be moot either way, since as you pointed out--the shot that killed the kid seems to have came from outside.
Which brings me to a new point, what part of Detroit was this? Because from what I've heard, they've had problems with dickheads taking potshots at the cops.
Actually there's good odds grandma doesn't have her glasses on, and can't see . They did do this at night after a flashbomb went off. The intent is to disorient which has the effect of disorienting. Saying should should be able to recognize anything is pushing it. SWAT doesn't want recognition, they want immediate compliance and elimination of potential threats.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
Kanluwen wrote:Once again:
It is now seeming that the shot that killed the child came from outside.
If the police were inside, that indicates that they were not the ones who shot the child.
Crazy, right?
If it was someone just taking a shot at the cops, it's even more of a justification for the way they have to enter these houses for felony arrests. Just a really sad cycle.
Fateweaver wrote:Karon wrote:Dumbass GI Joe cops, armed to take down a damn T-REX, come in, and shoot a kid.
I mean come on. I hope that cop goes to jail for the rest of his life. That shouldn't ever happen. His life is already ruined, his dreams haunted with him shooting a baby.
Flakk the police, never liked them.
Wow, I don't even know how to respond to this post so I won't.
Ah feth it. Yes, a more logical solution for entering a home where a man shot and killed a teenager earlier is to enter with flowers and chocolates.
Wow, that left me with an upset stomach having to read that post.
Rule 14.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Bla_Ze wrote:I have come to the conclusion that the US law enforcement really got some big issues.
Officers are supposed to serve the public, killing a 7yo becuase you wanted to be a split-second faster, is IMO unacceptable.
If your own well being inturudes on the saftey of potential innocent citizens i dont think you are fit yo be a police officer.
Of course i carry a more or less biased oppinion since officers where i come from ask questions first and shoots later.
I've come to the conclusion that people from wherever BlaZe comes from, make conclusions without actually looking at facts, and merely off of headlines. Automatically Appended Next Post: Karon wrote:Dumbass GI Joe cops, armed to take down a damn T-REX, come in, and shoot a kid.
I mean come on. I hope that cop goes to jail for the rest of his life. That shouldn't ever happen. His life is already ruined, his dreams haunted with him shooting a baby.
Flakk the police, never liked them.
I'm betting you're 15 right?
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Uh, SWAT, same as any police agency, is required to have clearly marked uniforms(barring undercover officers, who even during raids are required to at least have a badge visible).
I didn't see anything about her wearing glasses, or her being in the room where the flashbang went off.
Which, again, means she wasn't blinded--just deaf.
So she made a move towards an armed and clearly recognizable officer.
Seems pretty fething stupid to me.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Kanluwen wrote:Once again:
It is now seeming that the shot that killed the child came from outside.
If the police were inside, that indicates that they were not the ones who shot the child.
Crazy, right?
Yea, er good point there.
3567
Post by: usernamesareannoying
they should have just done em all then this wouldn't be an issue.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Kanluwen wrote:Uh, SWAT, same as any police agency, is required to have clearly marked uniforms(barring undercover officers, who even during raids are required to at least have a badge visible).
I didn't see anything about her wearing glasses, or her being in the room where the flashbang went off.
Which, again, means she wasn't blinded--just deaf.
So she made a move towards an armed and clearly recognizable officer.
Seems pretty fething stupid to me.
Well
1. Lets put aside the point the bullet coming from outside which kind of miitgates everything else now doesn't it Kanly (your moniker makes me think Van Lewen from Aliens II )
2. Putting myself in perspective here. At night with guys with flashlights and bombs going off I'm not going to see cops. Mereley waking me up at night I'm not going to see cops-I am going to see a blod. Every person I know over 45 is going to have the same problem.
3. Irrelevant. People coming in screaming with lights the idea is compliance. I'd probably be like 99.9% and be shocked and comply. thats the idea no?
5394
Post by: reds8n
Kanluwen wrote:[
Do you know what flashbangs do?
I mean really, have any clue at all?
Yes, quite a good idea actually.
I also know, from personal experience, exactly how disorientating it is when the Police smash down the door to your house and storm in there late at night.
And that was as a, relatively, fit and healthy 25 year old at the time. NOT as an innocent 46 year old grandmother, minding her own business late at night not expecting any trouble as.. THEY WERE NOT ACTUALLY SHELTERING ANY WOULD BE FUGITIVE AT ALL.
But that point seems to be moot either way, since as you pointed out--the shot that killed the kid seems to have came from outside.
.
Yes, the reports are saying that Police outside the building fired into it.
14852
Post by: Fateweaver
I've only seen it say the shot was fired from outside. Haven't read anything saying the SWAT team fired the shot from outside.
4056
Post by: Bla_Ze
Frazzled wrote:Bla_Ze wrote:I have come to the conclusion that the US law enforcement really got some big issues.
Officers are supposed to serve the public, killing a 7yo becuase you wanted to be a split-second faster, is IMO unacceptable.
If your own well being inturudes on the saftey of potential innocent citizens i dont think you are fit yo be a police officer.
Of course i carry a more or less biased oppinion since officers where i come from ask questions first and shoots later.
I've come to the conclusion that people from wherever BlaZe comes from, make conclusions without actually looking at facts, and merely off of headlines.
Forgive me but i dont get what part of my post you think i make groundless conclusions? Seriously.
181
Post by: gorgon
Frazzled wrote:I've come to the conclusion that people from wherever BlaZe comes from, make conclusions without actually looking at facts, and merely off of headlines.
To be fair to BlaZe, I've heard it said that European countries have a different philosophical bent regarding police. We in the U.S. tend to view the job as "law enforcement," they see it as "public service". Not saying either is right or wrong, just that we may be coming at things from different directions.
This leads right into to an interesting question IMO -- should officer safety or citizen safety be the primary concern?
5394
Post by: reds8n
Fateweaver wrote:I've only seen it say the shot was fired from outside. Haven't read anything saying the SWAT team fired the shot from outside.
Except there doesn't appear to be any discrepancy as to which weapon was fired, merely where the firer was at the time.
There's no reports of other shots, the police are saying they suspended the guy and they've handed the case over to Michigan State Police to investigate, including the use of the grenade.
221
Post by: Frazzled
reds8n wrote: I also know, from personal experience, exactly how disorientating it is when the Police smash down the door to your house and storm in there late at night.
Thats redy, are own little Modquisitor low rent drug runner. At least they didn't kick in the door raqiding the house for your illegal Barney collection...again. Automatically Appended Next Post: gorgon wrote:Frazzled wrote:I've come to the conclusion that people from wherever BlaZe comes from, make conclusions without actually looking at facts, and merely off of headlines.
To be fair to BlaZe, I've heard it said that European countries have a different philosophical bent regarding police. We in the U.S. tend to view the job as "law enforcement," they see it as "public service". Not saying either is right or wrong, just that we may be coming at things from different directions.
This leads right into to an interesting question IMO -- should officer safety or citizen safety be the primary concern?
Easy question. Screw you all- MY SAFETY!!!!
21678
Post by: Karon
Frazzled wrote:Bla_Ze wrote:I have come to the conclusion that the US law enforcement really got some big issues.
Officers are supposed to serve the public, killing a 7yo becuase you wanted to be a split-second faster, is IMO unacceptable.
If your own well being inturudes on the saftey of potential innocent citizens i dont think you are fit yo be a police officer.
Of course i carry a more or less biased oppinion since officers where i come from ask questions first and shoots later.
I've come to the conclusion that people from wherever BlaZe comes from, make conclusions without actually looking at facts, and merely off of headlines.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Karon wrote:Dumbass GI Joe cops, armed to take down a damn T-REX, come in, and shoot a kid.
I mean come on. I hope that cop goes to jail for the rest of his life. That shouldn't ever happen. His life is already ruined, his dreams haunted with him shooting a baby.
Flakk the police, never liked them.
I'm betting you're 15 right?
23, actually.
I think my post came off the wrong way, or I didn't read the OP correctly.
The possibilities of that shot coming from the outside is....crazy, but genius.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Bla_Ze wrote:
Forgive me but i dont get what part of my post you think i make groundless conclusions? Seriously.
You've made your epic conclusion about the law enforcement of a separate nation from a few headlines. Priceless.
2700
Post by: dietrich
gorgon wrote:This leads right into to an interesting question IMO -- should officer safety or citizen safety be the primary concern?
I don't see why they're mutually exclusive. If you don't put cops in bad situations, they're less likely to make a mistake. It's like walking down dark allies with $20 bills hanging out of your pockets. You're not asking to get mugged, but you could have done something different to reduce the risk. Police have an inherently dangerous profession, making it less dangerous (by doing things like avoiding door-kicking, and riding alone on patrol) helps everyone.
5394
Post by: reds8n
Long story short : Renting a house.. christ 10+ years back now.... and the landlord it seemed was involved in people trafficing and had various abodes crammed full of illegal immigrants. Police raided all his properties one night... and we were just unlucky.. or lucky..depending upon your perspective.
They were very apologetic and fixed up the front door and paid for all damages -- thinking back it actually worked out quite well as I'm reasonably certain we'd broken the letter box on the door they smashed down, so we'll chalk it up as a win.
Front door opened pretty much straight into the living room, I'm say there playing Super Smash Brothers ( on the N64 !) and then next thing I know I'm pretty much pinned to the sofa by a very large gentlemen who is also yelling at me whilst other people run upstairs/into the rest of the house. Bear in mind this was a terraced 2 up 2 down the search took all of 38 seconds before they seemed to twig that we weren't Chinese immigrants.
It was a very long 38 seconds though.
And best of all they didn't find the big block of hash I had in my bedroom either
14852
Post by: Fateweaver
Frazzled wrote:Bla_Ze wrote:
Forgive me but i dont get what part of my post you think i make groundless conclusions? Seriously.
You've made your epic conclusion about the law enforcement of a separate nation from a few headlines. Priceless.
It wouldn't be OT forum if jumping to conclusions was NOT the norm.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
gorgon wrote:This leads right into to an interesting question IMO -- should officer safety or citizen safety be the primary concern?
Given that the job of the officer is supposed to "protect & serve", I'm going pick "citizen safety".
Especially as the officers are the active party here. They created the situation, and apparently fired blind at the house.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
gorgon wrote:This leads right into to an interesting question IMO -- should officer safety or citizen safety be the primary concern?
The problem is that you won't find people willing to storm a house if they won't be allowed to defend themselves if the people in there don't want to come quietly...
2700
Post by: dietrich
Fateweaver wrote:It wouldn't be OT forum if jumping to conclusions was NOT the norm.
Reference to Office Space
4056
Post by: Bla_Ze
Frazzled wrote:Bla_Ze wrote:
Forgive me but i dont get what part of my post you think i make groundless conclusions? Seriously.
You've made your epic conclusion about the law enforcement of a separate nation from a few headlines. Priceless.
I see you have taken offence, fret not sir, since you did not fully grasp what i wrote out of anger or my inability to convey my thoughs through written english.
I take it you disagree that US law enforcement got big issues since this is the only thing i wrote about it. I said nothing more about the US.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
reds8n wrote: And best of all they didn't find the big block of hash I had in my bedroom either
In Amerika, they'd have found it, and then nailed you to the wall as a big-time drug dealer...
14852
Post by: Fateweaver
JohnHwangDD wrote:gorgon wrote:This leads right into to an interesting question IMO -- should officer safety or citizen safety be the primary concern?
Given that the job of the officer is supposed to "protect & serve", I'm going pick "citizen safety".
Especially as the officers are the active party here. They created the situation, and apparently fired blind at the house.
I see nothing that says SWAT fired at the house, only that the shot came from outside. We can conclude that is what happened but we also don't know what might have caused the officer to open fire.
The people in the house created the situation by harboring a felon. Again, if you don't want police knocking your door in at 1AM don't allow a man who killed a teenager to reside in your house and hide there.
5394
Post by: reds8n
I know for a 100% fact that at least 2 of the officers there that night toked.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
Fateweaver wrote:JohnHwangDD wrote:gorgon wrote:This leads right into to an interesting question IMO -- should officer safety or citizen safety be the primary concern?
Given that the job of the officer is supposed to "protect & serve", I'm going pick "citizen safety". Especially as the officers are the active party here. They created the situation, and apparently fired blind at the house.
I see nothing that says SWAT fired at the house, only that the shot came from outside. We can conclude that is what happened but we also don't know what might have caused the officer to open fire. The people in the house created the situation by harboring a felon. Again, if you don't want police knocking your door in at 1AM don't allow a man who killed a teenager to reside in your house and hide there.
Um, no, they didn't. The felon wasn't in the house at all. Officers arrested the suspect during the search, Godbee said. Jones said the suspect wasn't in his apartment but one upstairs that officers raided at the same time.
Wrong apartment!
722
Post by: Kanluwen
JohnHwangDD wrote:gorgon wrote:This leads right into to an interesting question IMO -- should officer safety or citizen safety be the primary concern?
Given that the job of the officer is supposed to "protect & serve", I'm going pick "citizen safety".
Especially as the officers are the active party here. They created the situation, and apparently fired blind at the house.
Until we actually see the Michigan State Bureau of Investigation come back with a ballistics match to any of the officers' weapons, I'm going to say your statement is a ridiculous reactionary statement. Kay?
It is not uncommon in low income areas for SWAT/police serving warrants or performing raids to get shot at. Hell, it's not uncommon for it to happen in any US city that has gang activity.
The worst part is it's not limited to just shooting at police officers or SWAT. These same gaks also take potshots at EMS crews.
14852
Post by: Fateweaver
Upstairs of the duplex.
Obviously authorities had reason to suspect he'd be in either one. Apparently a dual warrant. Apparently they acted as they were supposed to.
What happened is tragic. What SHOULD have happened is the guy who killed the teen gets shot in the neck during the breach but it was a little girl instead.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
If someone in an apartment building is dealing, that makes it right to raid every apartment, or even the entire block? Really?
They're "supposed to" get broad warrants? Really?
I wasn't aware I lived in a police state.
14852
Post by: Fateweaver
Done arguing with you.
Logic has eluded you John.
But go on thinking it's automatically SWATS fault that some 46 year old lost all common sense, attacked a cop and now a 7yo is dead.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Damn double post.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
JohnHwangDD wrote:If someone in an apartment building is dealing, that makes it right to raid every apartment, or even the entire block? Really?
They're "supposed to" get broad warrants? Really?
Actually, since they have to convince a judge that the guy might be in the place they want a warrant for, yeah they are supposed to get broad warrants if they need them.
This isn't about "Dealing" either, it's about someone who gunned down a teenager. Seriously dude, being this reactionary against police becomes really sad when you get out of your mid-teens.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
JohnHwangDD wrote:If someone in an apartment building is dealing, that makes it right to raid every apartment, or even the entire block? Really?
They're "supposed to" get broad warrants? Really?
I wasn't aware I lived in a police state.
Apartment building != duplex.
Use some common sense.
If someone in an apartment building is dealing, then they'll get a warrant to raid raid that apartment. If they have reason to believe there is more than one person in said building dealing?
Then they'll get warrants to raid those apartments.
However they will establish a cordon around the apartment complex and not let anyone in or out while the raid is in progress.
5534
Post by: dogma
Fateweaver wrote:
I see nothing that says SWAT fired at the house, only that the shot came from outside.
Uh, dude, the subject of the article that discusses the shot coming from outside includes the notion that it was fired by a cop. No one with any perspective on the incident has discussed the idea that the shot was fired by someone else. Additionally, the 'outside' being referred to is not 'outside the building' its 'outside the apartment'. Automatically Appended Next Post: JohnHwangDD wrote:If someone in an apartment building is dealing, that makes it right to raid every apartment, or even the entire block? Really?
They're "supposed to" get broad warrants? Really?
I wasn't aware I lived in a police state.
Unless you live in Michigan, you probably don't. Automatically Appended Next Post: Kanluwen wrote:
If someone in an apartment building is dealing, then they'll get a warrant to raid raid that apartment. If they have reason to believe there is more than one person in said building dealing?
Then they'll get warrants to raid those apartments.
But that's not what was done, the police made official statements that indicated the warrant applied to the whole building.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
And the whole building is a duplex.
As in, a side-by-side semi-connected home.
They'd have to get a warrant for the whole building either way due to the nature of the building.
14852
Post by: Fateweaver
I don't think some people are aware of how duplexes work.
As Kan said, you need a warrant for the WHOLE house. Duplex =/= an apartment complex.
5394
Post by: reds8n
Kanluwen wrote:
However they will establish a cordon around the apartment complex and not let anyone in or out while the raid is in progress.
So now you're claiming that there were in fact Police outside the apartment and they weren't all, magically, inside the building and unable to fire at the apartment. Even though earlier you were claiming the polie were inside and therfore couldn't have fired from outside the apartment. Okay. And not one of these guys happened to notice this mysterious new gunman, from some knoll presumably, who randomly fired into the apartment killing the girl. Right.
Meanwhile... http://seorant.ath.cx/police/ladybird.html That's more our understanding of the Police.
21678
Post by: Karon
JohnHwangDD wrote:reds8n wrote: And best of all they didn't find the big block of hash I had in my bedroom either
In Amerika, they'd have found it, and then nailed you to the wall as a big-time drug dealer...
Yeah, really. I am not a fan of the US's stance on drugs. But that's off-topic, so I won't go into it any farther.
I see that I did come off rather childish in my earlier post.
What I meant was, I don't like it when cops, who are here to PROTECT the people, while they come and shoot a kid. Just set off a wrong reaction with me, apologies.
Anyways, it would be absolutely......whats a word...astronomical.
5534
Post by: dogma
Kanluwen wrote:And the whole building is a duplex.
As in, a side-by-side semi-connected home.
They'd have to get a warrant for the whole building either way due to the nature of the building.
No, if they are side-by-side homes sharing a wall, then they are considered separate properties necessitating separate warrants.
If they are two separate dwellings on two separate floors within the same building sharing more than a wall, then they are a single property necessitating a single warrant.
We do not know which is the case, as the term duplex covers both cases. Automatically Appended Next Post: Fateweaver wrote:I don't think some people are aware of how duplexes work.
Indeed, it appears that way.
7926
Post by: youbedead
Fateweaver wrote:JohnHwangDD wrote:gorgon wrote:This leads right into to an interesting question IMO -- should officer safety or citizen safety be the primary concern?
Given that the job of the officer is supposed to "protect & serve", I'm going pick "citizen safety".
Especially as the officers are the active party here. They created the situation, and apparently fired blind at the house.
I see nothing that says SWAT fired at the house, only that the shot came from outside. We can conclude that is what happened but we also don't know what might have caused the officer to open fire.
The people in the house created the situation by harboring a felon. Again, if you don't want police knocking your door in at 1AM don't allow a man who killed a teenager to reside in your house and hide there.
There is this brand new concept called innocent until proven guilty. in order to be a fellon he would have to be convicted wouldn't he, also i don't think most people go around saying "i killed a kid". And this would only matter if there were actually harboring a felon not just near someone who was.
5470
Post by: sebster
Fateweaver wrote:There will be a civil suit I'm sure. The US is great for this "entitlement" mentality that allows criminals and lazy fethers to get millions of dollars for doing nothing at all. Like the McD's lawsuit over the hot coffee and many others of that nature.
“Doing nothing at all”? Seven year old child was killed. I’m not sure I’d really describe that “doing nothing at all”, personally.
And McDonalds hot coffee case involved coffee that wasn’t just hot, but ludicrously hot, to the extent that it caused second degree burns to the genitals, through the jeans in about 20 seconds. It was this hot because the machine was faulty, and despite a large volume of complaints in the month or two before the incident, nothing was done to repair it. The plaintiff originally tried to just recover the cost of the skin grafts and no more, and only took the matter to court when McDonalds refused that much. While the punitive damages originally awarded by the jury was extremely high, this was brought down on appeal.
While it’s nice and easy to form opinions about based around a single line ‘she sued because her coffee was hot teehee’, reality is often a lot more complicated.
Karon wrote:Dumbass GI Joe cops, armed to take down a damn T-REX, come in, and shoot a kid.
I mean come on. I hope that cop goes to jail for the rest of his life. That shouldn't ever happen. His life is already ruined, his dreams haunted with him shooting a baby.
Flakk the police, never liked them.
Being a policeman is an extremely difficult job. While it is a dangerous mistake to back the police in everything they do, your opinion above is just as problematic.
There is a position in between, where you can weigh the needs of the officer to protect himself and any civilians against the risk of causing greater harm. Reading the opening story and concluding the officers were dumbass GI Joe cops is not giving that kind of balanced opinion.
Fateweaver wrote:The people in the house created the situation by harboring a felon. Again, if you don't want police knocking your door in at 1AM don't allow a man who killed a teenager to reside in your house and hide there.
They weren’t harbouring a felon. He was not in their dwelling. Don’t lecture people on jumping to conclusions when you can’t get the simple facts of the case right.
While my reading at this point seems like this was a tragic incident rather than poor police practice, you’re effort to assign blame to the family who were in their own home, not harbouring anyone is quite odious.
28942
Post by: Stormrider
OMG, the police were wrong! Say it isn't so!
A terrible shame about the child, but that's life sometimes. Bad things happen to innocent people all the time.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
sebster wrote:
Fateweaver wrote:The people in the house created the situation by harboring a felon. Again, if you don't want police knocking your door in at 1AM don't allow a man who killed a teenager to reside in your house and hide there.
They weren’t harbouring a felon. He was not in their dwelling. Don’t lecture people on jumping to conclusions when you can’t get the simple facts of the case right.
While my reading at this point seems like this was a tragic incident rather than poor police practice, you’re effort to assign blame to the family who were in their own home, not harbouring anyone is quite odious.
They police had a warrant to enter that apartment, which means that I judge decided that they had probable cause to think that the guy they were looking for would be in there. The fact that he wasn't there at the time doesn't mean that it's impossible for it to ever happen.
As far as the facts of the case are concerned, none of us really know enough to speak with any kind of real authority on them. It's a terrible tragedy, and obviously an accident. I don't know what else there is to say about it.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Monster Rain wrote:JohnHwangDD wrote:If someone in an apartment building is dealing, that makes it right to raid every apartment, or even the entire block? Really?
They're "supposed to" get broad warrants? Really?
Actually, since they have to convince a judge that the guy might be in the place they want a warrant for, yeah they are supposed to get broad warrants if they need them.
This isn't about "Dealing" either, it's about someone who gunned down a teenager. Seriously dude, being this reactionary against police becomes really sad when you get out of your mid-teens.
Thats not how it works. You have to have warrants for every location with probable cause satisfied for every location. Blanket warrants means the judge is going to get his head kicked in by the appellate court.
181
Post by: gorgon
Monster Rain wrote:gorgon wrote:This leads right into to an interesting question IMO -- should officer safety or citizen safety be the primary concern?
The problem is that you won't find people willing to storm a house if they won't be allowed to defend themselves if the people in there don't want to come quietly...
Which is why I think raids like this ought to be the very last resort. It's an incredibly adrenaline packed situation on all sides. You're setting up occupants to get themselves shot (again, I could see myself not being as submissive as the cops would want me in that situation) and setting up the cops for an accident to happen.
Just so I'm clear -- it may be that it IS treated as a very last resort by the Detroit and other police departments. I'm not claiming they were being cowboys in this case because we don't know the particulars. I just think the maneuver itself is fraught with peril and hope that my local LE would think carefully before attempting this at anyone's home.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
@ Frazzled:
That remains to be seen. My point was if they have a warrant it's because they convinced a judge that there was probable cause for them to look in those places, that's all.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Monster Rain wrote:@ Frazzled:
That remains to be seen. My point was if they have a warrant it's because they convinced a judge that there was probable cause for them to look in those places, that's all.
Ayah. I was just noting that there isn't such things as blanket warrants.
|
|
