Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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".

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

Wait, keeping your finger on the trigger is detroit police procedure? Anyone know?

Bla_Ze wrote:Wait, keeping your finger on the trigger is detroit police procedure? Anyone know?

Dude, its Detroit. You know Robocop country...

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.

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.

Still, trigger discipline when raiding a house ought to be procedure, since you have buddies in the firing line.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Yes.

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.

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?

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.