If the officer failed to identify himself, I'm sure that was in violation of department policy and not a smart thing to do for obvious reasons. However, the occupant of the room may not have heard the officer identifying himself even if he did at the beginning of the encounter due to being roused from a deep sleep and not at the peak of his sensory awareness. In the absence of more definitive information either way, I lean toward possibility 2, since I can't see any good reason for #1 and it would be a very unusual practice in a situation like this.baldeagle wrote:I commend the officer for not firing as well, but why would he not announce himself as law enforcement? Why not show a badge? If you forcibly enter a room without doing that, killing you is justifiable homicide. Why even put yourself in that position?
Like say the LPO at Costco's in Vegas?Excalibur wrote:I've had to untangle incidents where a citizen in a position of trust or special knowledge (e.g. store security officer with multiple police contacts regarding shoplifting incidents) wildly misinterprets something he or she comes across and fabricates surrounding facts that are presented as a life threatening emergency requiring direct and highly intrusive action.
In answer to your reference to the LV Costco case, yes, one of my instances was very close to that and involved a false report of a kidnapping with the alleged offender and the very young victim together in a car parked on a street in a crowded commercial area at rush hour.
We determined that a surprise forcible takedown was the approach least likely to result in casualties or a hostage situation. The suspect was removed from the car, proned out, handcuffed, and in the back seat of a patrol car before he could say "What the...?" My officers were very highly trained in arrest situation commands, when and when not to shoot and in safe gun handling. No shots were fired.
After short interviews with both the complainant and the alleged offender back at the station, we determined that the person in custody was completely innocent and the child was in his authorized custody. We dusted him off and turned him loose with a careful explanation of the information we had been given, why we took the action we did, and an apology, as well as a reminder that the incident reports would be available to him if he decided to pursue an action against the store.
He was very understanding about what we had done in response to the situation we were presented with, and justifiably angry at the conduct of the store's personnel.
Unlike the Las Vegas outcome, the only injury was, eventually, to the store's insurance carrier's finances.