TexasCHLforum.com

E.Marquez wrote:

VMI77 wrote: What "conspiracy" theories? According to the link I provided an old man got killed inside his garage by police officers responding to a burglar alarm? The guy either committed suicide by cop or he didn't realize he was confronting police officers until it was too late. How can any plausible "conspiracy" be developed out of that?

Its not a conspiracy, when it's true
http://www.erikbscott.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Just saying.. there are more than the two scenarios then you have proposed..

He realised it was LEO's.. and they engaged anyway...

Two officers, but reasonable inexperienced, and both likely highly animated in there attempt to control the situation...

STOP
GET DOWN
DON'T MOVE
RAISE YOUR HANDS
GET ON THE GROUND
DROP THE GUN
DON'T MOVE
GET DOWN....

BANG, BANG< BANG< BANGBANG....Bang.....
Because once that point is reached,, you fire until the perceived threat is no longer a threat..... ie not moving or physically separated from the gun. .. Preferable both.

I'm not going all nuts so and claiming it was intentional or murder.... Not even saying it was the officer's fault at all.... or the decedent. Just that there are many possibilities in addition to He knew it was a cop and wanted to die, or did not know it was a cop.

Time and an independent investigation MAY tell us more.. or it may not vis vis Erik Scott

I agree all that is possible, but based on the information made available, and especially the radio call, it doesn't appear to be an Erik Scott scenario (if the radio call was truthful). Also, I'm not expressing certainty by calling out only two possibilities, just what seems, based on the limited available information, most plausible and most probable. In speculating we can't completely dismiss any possibility but as far as the old man deliberately engaging.....I don't find that scenario very plausible, but if he did and was not mentally ill, it is tantamount to suicide by cop.

In any case, I don't see a conspiracy in the Erik Scott case, as far as killing Scott is concerned. A conspiracy after the fact to cover up negligence or mistakes, and a process that facilitates cover ups, yeah, apparently.....sort of looks SOP for Las Vegas.

baldeagle wrote:

VMI77 wrote: http://www.wfaa.com/news/local/tarrant/ ... 07171.html

Jerry Waller was killed inside his own garage in the Woodhaven neighborhood early Tuesday morning.

A pair of Fort Worth police officers, who have been on the force less than a year, were responding to a burglary alarm in the area.

There's two problems with this. The first is, what does killed inside his garage mean? If they wrote shot while inside his garage, that would be specific. Killed inside his garage could mean that's where he expired. The imprecision of the language lends itself to speculation. Secondly, citing that the officers were on the force for less than a year is prejudicial. It leads the reader to the obvious conclusion that they were young, inexperienced and screwed up. Those aren't facts. They are suppositions.

No, the language is quite precise. Killed inside means just what it says: killed inside. If he was shot outside the garage and then died inside, it would say died inside. It doesn't mean he was shot elsewhere and died in the garage unless the author of the article is not conversant with the English language. Killed is the past tense of "kill," and kill is defined thus:

kill
verb \ˈkil\
transitive verb
1
a : to deprive of life : cause the death of

....killed (Caused the death of) inside....

baldeagle wrote:

VMI77 wrote:And it's a little strange from the logical point of view how you accept the police version and reject the homeowner's version.

The homeowner is dead. How could he have a version?

Again, as I've repeatedly stated, we don't have enough facts to make any judgments about what happened, and speculation about what happened merely fuels conspiracy theories.

I'm guessing here on this one, that the surviving spouse also has an ownership interest in the house. She said all she could see was their flashlights and couldn't tell they were police officers.

What "conspiracy" theories? According to the link I provided an old man got killed inside his garage by police officers responding to a burglar alarm? The guy either committed suicide by cop or he didn't realize he was confronting police officers until it was too late. How can any plausible "conspiracy" be developed out of that?

baldeagle wrote:

VMI77 wrote:Sort of simple actually. He was on his property, there were no police there. He remained on his property and police appeared. The police approached him on his property, he didn't stray off his property to approach the police.

And you got this information where? I saw nothing in the article that stated where he was before the police confronted him, where he was when the police confronted him and who approached whom. The only thing we know for certain is that he was dead in his garage. Given that people can travel some distance when shot before succumbing to their wounds, any statement about his or the officers' location at the time of the incident is pure speculation. And that's a poor basis for accusing anyone of anything.

http://www.wfaa.com/news/local/tarrant/ ... 07171.html

Jerry Waller was killed inside his own garage in the Woodhaven neighborhood early Tuesday morning.

A pair of Fort Worth police officers, who have been on the force less than a year, were responding to a burglary alarm in the area.

The pair was originally dispatched to a home across the street from the Waller's, but for some reason, ended up face-to-face with Waller after he opened his garage door.

And it's a little strange from the logical point of view how you accept the police version and reject the homeowner's version.

baldeagle wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

baldeagle wrote:but we do know that he pointed his gun at the officers.

No, we don't KNOW that. We might accept it as a fact but there is also reason not to accept it as a fact. You're quoting a radio call made after the shooting. If the officers thought they screwed up and were afraid of the consequences they could have made the radio call for cover. Logically, to accept it as fact you have to believe that all police officers tell the truth all the time.

And to reject it as fact you have to assume that all police officers will lie all the time. My assertion would be that at this time, that's all the evidence we have, so it's all we can discuss. Speculation serves no useful purpose except to buttress an opinion not based on facts.

No, sorry, that's not the way the logic works. In this case knowing that some officers lie, we can't reject the possibility that these two particular officers lied. However, to believe they're telling the truth you have to accept the proposition that no police officers lie, since if any police officers lie, these particular officers could be part of the set that lies. I've repeated several times that outside of the facts I've articulated I don't know what happened. But there are only TWO logical possibilities in this case: 1) the homeowner knew they were police and committed suicide by cop; 2) the homeowner didn't know they were police and got killed because he was afraid of an unknown threat. However, I am curious to know what opinion you think I've expressed --other than my opinion about the evolution of police culture?

G26ster wrote:

Keith B wrote:
You must be reading more into it than I am. It doesn't even say Waller had a CHL. It is only a statement about CHL holders by the neighbor who is a former legislator and co-author on the orignal CHL bill.

Keith, I see a definite inference to CHL laws by the headline, statements throughout the article about CHL, and by statements such as, Then and now, some police oppose expanded gun rights because they fear such confusion. (Fort Worth is an exception. Carter convinced the late police Chief Thomas Windham that more good than bad would come of the new law.) and the statement by Patterson preceded by, "the original author of the law " and "Direct any complaints to Austin." No mention of the legality of any lawful gun owner having one for defense of the home (Castle Doctrine), only references to the CHL law as if this was the reason the victim was armed. I believe the intent of this article was to influence voters, who have no clue as to the Castle Doctrine or CHL laws, and to blame the CHL laws as making this tragedy possible. MHO

Of course it was.....that's the MO of the left, let no tragedy go to waste.

baldeagle wrote: but we do know that he pointed his gun at the officers.

No, we don't KNOW that. We might accept it as a fact but there is also reason not to accept it as a fact. You're quoting a radio call made after the shooting. If the officers thought they screwed up and were afraid of the consequences they could have made the radio call for cover. Logically, to accept it as fact you have to believe that all police officers tell the truth all the time. Not even DA's believe that. I've been called to jury duty twice over the last few years and every DA over four selection pools said unequivocally that the police lie and that you cannot accept the testimony of a police officer as true simply because he's a police officer --and he was talking about circumstances where what an officer said put a defendant at risk, not himself.

baldeagle wrote:

VMI77 wrote:In this case, the old man didn't "force himself on police while carrying a gun." The police forced themselves on HIM.

How in the world do you know this? Are you privy to inside information the rest of us don't have? 1) We don't know who initiated the contact. 2) We don't know the nature of the contact (did the owner have his gun pointed at the officers? Was he aggressively moving toward them? Was he sitting passively in a chair and they blew him away?

Sort of simple actually. He was on his property, there were no police there. He remained on his property and police appeared. The police approached him on his property, he didn't stray off his property to approach the police. It's what happened once the police came on to his property that is in question. Furthermore, I already stated at least twice that I did not believe the police murdered him, so your question of --him sitting passively in a chair and they blew him away-- is just a gratuitous attempt to be insulting.

baldeagle wrote:

VMI77 wrote:And sorry, no CHL owner gets to pull out a gun and shoot someone without warning without going to prison. If a CHL holder shot someone in the same or similar circumstances, his life would be over.

How do you know there was no warning?

A single case of a CHL holder shooting someone without first warning them would disprove your statement. There are sufficient videos on Youtube of exactly that happening that I don't even need to post them. There is no requirement in the law to warn someone before shooting them, and in some circumstances it would be foolhardy to do so.

How do I know there was no warning? I don't, and already addressed that possibility. If he was warned and pointed a gun at them then he was committing suicide by cop. It's possible, just doesn't seem likely.

Actually, a single case would not disprove my statement. If there were 100 such cases and in one a shooting without warning didn't result in prison, but 99 did, the statement is still true, it would still be true if it was 40 times out of a 100. It just changes from a certainty to a probability. But I think we're talking about two different things. My remark was intended to reflect an analogous situation. Surely you're not going to tell me that if a CHL holder thought his life was in danger, pulled out his gun, and shot someone, and that person turned out to have a cell phone or a hose nozzle in his hand that he wouldn't end up in prison? Do you think you could go looking for a burglar you just saw run out the back of your house intending to get a description for police, walk onto someone else's property where you thought he'd run, see them point a gun and you, draw and shoot them, and not go to prison? Yes, you might get off, but the odds are against it.

baldeagle wrote:I think you need to calm down. This story has obviously gotten you riled up - to the point that you're veering into uncharted and unproven territory with your accusations.

Sorry, but you don't know anything about me, and I'm not at all riled up. I haven't accused anyone of anything --I've made analogies and hypothetical comparisons. Again, I've stated quite clearly that unless you believe the officers murdered him, and I don't, then the shooting was the result of a series of unfortunate events. To say that the police culture has changed over the last four decades in ways that are not beneficial to the police or to citizens is not an accusation; it's an opinion.

Keith B wrote:

VMI77 wrote:I haven't gone back through every one of your comments on incidents like this but from those I remember it sure seems like you want to place blame anywhere but on police. Please explain further what you mean by the "current culture of people wanting to force themselves upon police while carrying a gun?" Personally, I'm afraid of the police because they're the only group of people I can't defend myself against if they attack me. The police break into my house by mistake my dog is dead, and if they see me with a gun having woken up in the middle of the night thinking my home is being invaded, I'm dead, and possibly my wife. Officer safety you know. No one else in this country has this kind of license to kill. I don't have a magic phrase like "officer safety" to keep me out of prison. There is no "citizen safety." If a bad cop rapes a woman and she shoots him, SHE is going to prison. Any sane and relatively informed person knows that any contact with police while armed, especially if the weapon is visible, is a possible death sentence. That's not the way it was 40 years ago.

In this case, the old man didn't "force himself on police while carrying a gun." The police forced themselves on HIM. And sorry, no CHL owner gets to pull out a gun and shoot someone without warning without going to prison. If a CHL holder shot someone in the same or similar circumstances, his life would be over. We already know what the result of the "investigation" is going to be: sorry surviving family members, but the officers acted properly in accordance with department procedures. The chances it will lead to charges for the officers are about the same as you encountering a legitimate residential alarm.

When you say the officers don't have to identify themselves you're saying a citizens right to self-defense is ALWAYS subordinate to police, since in the many cases where it is impossible for a citizen to see that a potential threat is the police, such as at night with a flashlight in your face, or coming out of a deep sleep in the middle of the night with your door crashing in, a citizen has to take the risk that the unidentified threat is a good guy. The police on the other hand, can shoot and then say they felt threatened and it's, oops, so sorry. The citizen shoots and it is the police, he ends up dead or in prison. So much for serve and protect.

Finally, in this particular case we come to one of two possible conclusions if we assume good faith on the part of the officers: 1) the old man didn't know they were police and felt threatened; or 2) the old man was tired of living and decided to commit suicide by cop. Which of these two possibilities is the most likely? You're apparently OK with number one; I'm not, and I consider it a police culture problem.

OK guys, this is getting heated. Drop the 'You know what the outcome will be' statements. You do NOT know what will be coming out of this.

Everyone needs to stop jumping to conclusions and let the investigation proceed to determine what happened. Once that is in progress then we can comment on the proceedings, but until that time no one knows what really happened or who was right or wrong in this case.

If we can't stay civil and level headed in discussion the thread will be locked.

OK, sorry, but I don't feel at all heated about it. My comment about the outcome is just based on logic and a belief that the police did not murder him, but shot him as a result of a series of unfortunate events. I don't think it should have happened but I don't see how the officers can be charged with anything either.

texanjoker wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

baldeagle wrote:I have refrained from commenting so far, but no longer. There seems to be an assumption that because these were rookie cops they must have made a mistake. We don't have the facts yet. It's far too early to speculate.

Here's what the article says.

According to Fort Worth police, the alarm call came just before 1 a.m. in the 400 block of North Havenwood Lane. But after arriving at the scene, officers became involved in a confrontation with a man armed with a gun who was across the street from where the alarm was going off.

I don't know what that means. Do you?

Feeling threatened, at least one officer fired at the man, who was later identified as Jerry Waller, police said. Waller was dead at the scene, in his own garage.

The article doesn't say what made them feel threatened. It also doesn't say Mr. Waller was in his garage when he was shot - only that he was dead in his garage.

Before I jump to any conclusions, I want to know more. Don't you? Or is it acceptable to condemn these officers without knowing the facts?

I suggest we all take a breath and think, there but for the grace of God go I.

Once we know all the facts, then perhaps we can condemn these officers, but first try to put yourself in their shoes (when we know the facts.) Given those facts, how would you have performed in their place? If your answer is I don't know or no better than them, then don't condemn them. If your answer is much better than them, maybe you need to reevaluate your thinking about your skill level. Or maybe not. Only you will know for sure.

As for me, I'm thankful I don't have to deal with the pressures of being required to pursue bad guys, especially at night, and put my life on the line every day. I'm also thankful there are young men who are still willing to volunteer to do that.

These two young men will have to deal with this the rest of their lives. The least I can do is hold off on condemning them until all the facts are known.

I'm not condemning the officers....I don't know what happened. And if they made a mistake it's possible we may never know because it appears the only other witness is dead. However, there is one fact that is not in question: they responded to a false burglar alarm to the wrong location and killed an old man on his own property. The notion that this old man pointed a gun at police knowing they were police is simply not credible. So, if he pointed a gun at them it is almost a certainty he didn't know they were police, which means they had not properly identified themselves. I highly doubt the police simply murdered him. However, the fact remains that the chain of events that led to killing this man were avoidable and it is simply not acceptable to have police trained or reacting in a way that leads to an innocent property owner being killed on his own property. What I'm saying is that the police culture is developing in a way that makes incidents like this inevitable and something needs to change.

LEO's wear a uniform to include patches and a badge to help ID themselves. There is no requirement to always ID oneself verbally before using deadly force if warranted by the specific event. That is no different then a CHL holder pulling out their gun and shooting somebody w/o warning.

Where is the blame for the person that set off the alarm and started this chain of events? Alarms are considered a burglary in progress and are treated as such. Had this person properly operated their alarm this would not have happened. Did the houses have easily identifiable address markings, what was the lighting like, ect. Things we do not know at this time. Like any other shooting, the investigation will take its course and in a few months we will learn more.

This is a general comment and not speaking about this incident. IMO the current culture of people wanting to force themselves upon police while carrying a gun is concerning to me. Common sense is being left out in some of these cases I read about and that will lead to more tragic incidents.

I haven't gone back through every one of your comments on incidents like this but from those I remember it sure seems like you want to place blame anywhere but on police. Please explain further what you mean by the "current culture of people wanting to force themselves upon police while carrying a gun?" Personally, I'm afraid of the police because they're the only group of people I can't defend myself against if they attack me. The police break into my house by mistake my dog is dead, and if they see me with a gun having woken up in the middle of the night thinking my home is being invaded, I'm dead, and possibly my wife. Officer safety you know. No one else in this country has this kind of license to kill. I don't have a magic phrase like "officer safety" to keep me out of prison. There is no "citizen safety." If a bad cop rapes a woman and she shoots him, SHE is going to prison. Any sane and relatively informed person knows that any contact with police while armed, especially if the weapon is visible, is a possible death sentence. That's not the way it was 40 years ago.

In this case, the old man didn't "force himself on police while carrying a gun." The police forced themselves on HIM. And sorry, no CHL owner gets to pull out a gun and shoot someone without warning without going to prison. If a CHL holder shot someone in the same or similar circumstances, his life would be over. We already know what the result of the "investigation" is going to be: sorry surviving family members, but the officers acted properly in accordance with department procedures. The chances it will lead to charges for the officers are about the same as you encountering a legitimate residential alarm.

When you say the officers don't have to identify themselves you're saying a citizens right to self-defense is ALWAYS subordinate to police, since in the many cases where it is impossible for a citizen to see that a potential threat is the police, such as at night with a flashlight in your face, or coming out of a deep sleep in the middle of the night with your door crashing in, a citizen has to take the risk that the unidentified threat is a good guy. The police on the other hand, can shoot and then say they felt threatened and it's, oops, so sorry. The citizen shoots and it is the police, he ends up dead or in prison. So much for serve and protect.

Finally, in this particular case we come to one of two possible conclusions if we assume good faith on the part of the officers: 1) the old man didn't know they were police and felt threatened; or 2) the old man was tired of living and decided to commit suicide by cop. Which of these two possibilities is the most likely? You're apparently OK with number one; I'm not, and I consider it a police culture problem.

baldeagle wrote:I have refrained from commenting so far, but no longer. There seems to be an assumption that because these were rookie cops they must have made a mistake. We don't have the facts yet. It's far too early to speculate.

Here's what the article says.

According to Fort Worth police, the alarm call came just before 1 a.m. in the 400 block of North Havenwood Lane. But after arriving at the scene, officers became involved in a confrontation with a man armed with a gun who was across the street from where the alarm was going off.

I don't know what that means. Do you?

Feeling threatened, at least one officer fired at the man, who was later identified as Jerry Waller, police said. Waller was dead at the scene, in his own garage.

The article doesn't say what made them feel threatened. It also doesn't say Mr. Waller was in his garage when he was shot - only that he was dead in his garage.

Before I jump to any conclusions, I want to know more. Don't you? Or is it acceptable to condemn these officers without knowing the facts?

I suggest we all take a breath and think, there but for the grace of God go I.

Once we know all the facts, then perhaps we can condemn these officers, but first try to put yourself in their shoes (when we know the facts.) Given those facts, how would you have performed in their place? If your answer is I don't know or no better than them, then don't condemn them. If your answer is much better than them, maybe you need to reevaluate your thinking about your skill level. Or maybe not. Only you will know for sure.

As for me, I'm thankful I don't have to deal with the pressures of being required to pursue bad guys, especially at night, and put my life on the line every day. I'm also thankful there are young men who are still willing to volunteer to do that.

These two young men will have to deal with this the rest of their lives. The least I can do is hold off on condemning them until all the facts are known.

I'm not condemning the officers....I don't know what happened. And if they made a mistake it's possible we may never know because it appears the only other witness is dead. However, there is one fact that is not in question: they responded to a false burglar alarm to the wrong location and killed an old man on his own property. The notion that this old man pointed a gun at police knowing they were police is simply not credible. So, if he pointed a gun at them it is almost a certainty he didn't know they were police, which means they had not properly identified themselves. I highly doubt the police simply murdered him. However, the fact remains that the chain of events that led to killing this man were avoidable and it is simply not acceptable to have police trained or reacting in a way that leads to an innocent property owner being killed on his own property. What I'm saying is that the police culture is developing in a way that makes incidents like this inevitable and something needs to change.

texanjoker wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

talltex wrote:

texanjoker wrote:

A burglary alarm call is way to common, and in my experience of going to hundreds of false residential alarms, a true waste of tax payer resources. Many larger cities are stopping the response all together unless there is something more. It is always the home owner setting it off accidentally. I cannot even recall ever responding to a valid residential alarm. Regarding experience, you are going to get whatever two units are available. If they were on their own, they are out of the training car and respond to calls accordingly. That is how it works everywhere. If something comes up, then a supervisor or senior officer will respond to assist if warranted.

I read some postings in here about the wrong address. It is easy to not find the correct address in the dark. Many people have poor if no lighting, and do not have their address displayed in a visible manner. When responding to calls like this, you want the element of surprise and are not going to spot light each house to find an address because you have to treat each alarm as a potential valid alarm. Everybody should take the time and make sure they have it on their house. One day you may need EMS and the extra time they take trying to find the house could be deadly.

I agree that having PD responding to alarm calls is a huge waste of taxpayer money...all that does is support the companies that sell the alarm systems, and provide the purchasers with a false sense of security. I also agree with your comments on experience...in an ideal world it'd be nice to always have an older more experienced officer on the scene, but that's not realistic, and at some point the rookies have to be cut loose on their own. Anytime something like this happens, you can always wonder if more experience might have made a difference, but we will never know. As to the wrong address...there I will take issue...the officers have the duty and responsibility to make SURE they are at the right location BEFORE they take any aggressive action, period. The risks to both the homeowner and the officers are just too high to do otherwise. If they have ANY doubt, then they don't need to be walking around to the backside of the property unannounced...better to let a "possible" burglar get away, than get in this situation. In this case, if you look at the video, you can plainly see the address stenciled on the curb at the end of the driveway...right where they approached. They just screwed up and went to the wrong house, and killed an innocent man because of their mistakes.

That's the "old way," as incident after incident continues to demonstrate. Now we have SWAT raids on innocent people because someone at another address was SUSPECTED of selling marijuana and the police got the wrong address. Lethal force is used so people won't consume a drug that is probably less destructive than alcohol. You see the NYPD expending over 40 rounds on a guy armed with a wallet and the LAPD emptying their guns in a vehicle without even knowing who is in it. The police now launch SWAT raids on people for selling raw milk and not paying their student loans. The police go to the wrong address and shoot dogs first and ask questions later. "Officer safety" now seems to have priority over every other consideration. Remember how the police sat out side Columbine HS while two teenage boys continued their killing spree? How often do you hear the mantra "a LEO just wants to come home to his family at the end of the day?" Have you ever heard it said about an innocent victim of a police shooting that "he just wanted to come home to his family at the end of the day?" I've heard from a number of recent combat vets that the military has more restrictive ROEs in WAR ZONES than LEO's in the US. But apparently, the military is concerned with not alienating the locals, something which our government here at home doesn't care about so much.

Read the comments following articles like this one: they are overwhelmingly critical of police behavior and express the belief that the police are above the law. Incidents like this, which as you point out, seem to show that LE too often lacks any sense of proportion. So we have a LEO saying that he's never responded to a legitimate residential alarm and at the same time using the alarm call as the justification for shooting an old man in his garage. The police just didn't act like this 30 years ago. You can even see it in the movies. For instance, compare "Dog Day Afternoon" made in 1975 to "Inside Man," made in 2006. Both movies depict the NYPD response to a bank robbery involving hostages. Among other things, In one, the police treat the hostages with concern and respect, and in the other they treat the hostages as criminals. Guess which is which? "Mistakes" like this are all too common and the end result will be increased distrust of the police which will breed reciprocal mistrust of citizens (what we used to be called, now we're "civilians"), and that in turn will lead to more incidents like this one.

Excuse me, but where did I justify this shooting? I posted some general comments about alarm calls and finding addresses so do not put words in my mouth. In addition age has no bearing on this incident. The guy was shot because he allegedly had a gun in his hand. Besides, there are too few facts to know what happened in this incident. They will do an investigation and the facts will come out.

Comparing police work to movies?

Comparing police work to movies. No, try again. Comparing the way police were depicted 30 years ago to how they're depicted now. Movies reflect the prevailing social conditions and attitudes at the time they were made. The depictions mirror the reality of how the police behave now (see Boston) versus the attitudes police took with citizens then.

Age has no bearing? Seriously....so police are trained to think a guy in his 70s is just as likely to be a burglar as he is to be the home owner? I would be in a robe or pajamas that time of night and I bet he was too. But even if he was fully dressed, what, the police are trained not to consider the possibility they may encounter a home owner with a gun on a burglary call? If you really believe age has no bearing to estimating the probabilities in a situation like this then what you're telling us is that the problems with police and public interactions go way deeper than anyone here has alluded to because the police don't assess risk anymore, they just see a gun and shoot. I want to see the police respected and to live under the rule of law. Shooting old men on their own property is unlikely to produce that result.

That said, I reread your comments and my response and I did mischaracterize your remarks as a justification. For that I apologize. However, as far as the police response goes, it doesn't change much. If LEO's know that a residential alarm is a false alarm almost 100% of the time, that should lead them to be extra careful and aware of the possibility they may encounter an armed citizen, and adjust their response accordingly.

Ignoring the growing problem of police conduct, the Us versus Them attitude, the increasing militarization, thinking of the public as enemy "civilians" instead of citizens, the quick resort to instruments of obedience and compliance like Tasers when us "civilians" don't immediately follow orders, the confiscation of video cameras, the stone-walling when there is an appearance of misconduct, and the increasingly glaring double standard in the use of deadly force is not going to make things better for police officers or citizens --just worse, until at some point the public considers the police to be an occupying force. However we may disagree in this forum I don't think anybody here wants to see that.

talltex wrote:

texanjoker wrote:

A burglary alarm call is way to common, and in my experience of going to hundreds of false residential alarms, a true waste of tax payer resources. Many larger cities are stopping the response all together unless there is something more. It is always the home owner setting it off accidentally. I cannot even recall ever responding to a valid residential alarm. Regarding experience, you are going to get whatever two units are available. If they were on their own, they are out of the training car and respond to calls accordingly. That is how it works everywhere. If something comes up, then a supervisor or senior officer will respond to assist if warranted.

I read some postings in here about the wrong address. It is easy to not find the correct address in the dark. Many people have poor if no lighting, and do not have their address displayed in a visible manner. When responding to calls like this, you want the element of surprise and are not going to spot light each house to find an address because you have to treat each alarm as a potential valid alarm. Everybody should take the time and make sure they have it on their house. One day you may need EMS and the extra time they take trying to find the house could be deadly.

I agree that having PD responding to alarm calls is a huge waste of taxpayer money...all that does is support the companies that sell the alarm systems, and provide the purchasers with a false sense of security. I also agree with your comments on experience...in an ideal world it'd be nice to always have an older more experienced officer on the scene, but that's not realistic, and at some point the rookies have to be cut loose on their own. Anytime something like this happens, you can always wonder if more experience might have made a difference, but we will never know. As to the wrong address...there I will take issue...the officers have the duty and responsibility to make SURE they are at the right location BEFORE they take any aggressive action, period. The risks to both the homeowner and the officers are just too high to do otherwise. If they have ANY doubt, then they don't need to be walking around to the backside of the property unannounced...better to let a "possible" burglar get away, than get in this situation. In this case, if you look at the video, you can plainly see the address stenciled on the curb at the end of the driveway...right where they approached. They just screwed up and went to the wrong house, and killed an innocent man because of their mistakes.

That's the "old way," as incident after incident continues to demonstrate. Now we have SWAT raids on innocent people because someone at another address was SUSPECTED of selling marijuana and the police got the wrong address. Lethal force is used so people won't consume a drug that is probably less destructive than alcohol. You see the NYPD expending over 40 rounds on a guy armed with a wallet and the LAPD emptying their guns in a vehicle without even knowing who is in it. The police now launch SWAT raids on people for selling raw milk and not paying their student loans. The police go to the wrong address and shoot dogs first and ask questions later. "Officer safety" now seems to have priority over every other consideration. Remember how the police sat out side Columbine HS while two teenage boys continued their killing spree? How often do you hear the mantra "a LEO just wants to come home to his family at the end of the day?" Have you ever heard it said about an innocent victim of a police shooting that "he just wanted to come home to his family at the end of the day?" I've heard from a number of recent combat vets that the military has more restrictive ROEs in WAR ZONES than LEO's in the US. But apparently, the military is concerned with not alienating the locals, something which our government here at home doesn't care about so much.

Read the comments following articles like this one: they are overwhelmingly critical of police behavior and express the belief that the police are above the law. Incidents like this, which as you point out, seem to show that LE too often lacks any sense of proportion. So we have a LEO saying that he's never responded to a legitimate residential alarm and at the same time using the alarm call as the justification for shooting an old man in his garage. The police just didn't act like this 30 years ago. You can even see it in the movies. For instance, compare "Dog Day Afternoon" made in 1975 to "Inside Man," made in 2006. Both movies depict the NYPD response to a bank robbery involving hostages. Among other things, In one, the police treat the hostages with concern and respect, and in the other they treat the hostages as criminals. Guess which is which? "Mistakes" like this are all too common and the end result will be increased distrust of the police which will breed reciprocal mistrust of citizens (what we used to be called, now we're "civilians"), and that in turn will lead to more incidents like this one.

jayinsat wrote:

jayinsat wrote: If I walked outside to investigate and did happen to see an individual walking out of a house, armed or unarmed, chances are I won't be able to differentiate between homeowner/tenant or intruder. God forbid I engage a legal homeowner/tenant who is checking out his own property with a gun in his hand.

The difference is, you do it, you feel bad and you go to prison, the police do it, they just feel bad.

texanjoker wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

K.Mooneyham wrote:As I have stated before, I am not and have never been an LEO. However, I do question the wisdom of whoever sent two inexperienced officers of the law into a situation where violence was distinctly possible. And I know that some of you will tell me that any police work can turn violent at any moment and I acknowledge that possibility; however, it seems to me that a burglary, where the suspect could easily be armed, would be a situation where that potential was a bit higher ALREADY. Thus, it would have seemed IMHO, that at least ONE more experienced officer should have been dispatched to that call ALONG WITH a less experienced officer, so the less experienced officer could be backup and GAIN experience. As johncanfield alluded to, there is such a concept as the "accident chain"; break any link and the chain is gone, the accident will not occur. I know LEOs get a LOT of training to deal with all sorts of situations, but nothing beats good, old-fashioned experience to temper that training, and perhaps recognize some of those links in an accident chain BEFORE the accident takes place.

One reason might be that both of them have relatives higher up the food chain in the same department --one a father in charge of training, recently retired as a Captain, and the other, an Uncle that is a Lieutenant.

What does their having family in the dept. have to do with this incident, absolutely nothing.

I don't know. The question was why two rookies were teamed together. It's not an unreasonable supposition that department politics had something to do with it.

K.Mooneyham wrote:As I have stated before, I am not and have never been an LEO. However, I do question the wisdom of whoever sent two inexperienced officers of the law into a situation where violence was distinctly possible. And I know that some of you will tell me that any police work can turn violent at any moment and I acknowledge that possibility; however, it seems to me that a burglary, where the suspect could easily be armed, would be a situation where that potential was a bit higher ALREADY. Thus, it would have seemed IMHO, that at least ONE more experienced officer should have been dispatched to that call ALONG WITH a less experienced officer, so the less experienced officer could be backup and GAIN experience. As johncanfield alluded to, there is such a concept as the "accident chain"; break any link and the chain is gone, the accident will not occur. I know LEOs get a LOT of training to deal with all sorts of situations, but nothing beats good, old-fashioned experience to temper that training, and perhaps recognize some of those links in an accident chain BEFORE the accident takes place.

One reason might be that both of them have relatives higher up the food chain in the same department --one a father in charge of training, recently retired as a Captain, and the other, an Uncle that is a Lieutenant.

DEB wrote:

E.Marquez wrote:

jayinsat wrote:My take away from this story so far: I am not a LEO. I will not go investigating my neighbors burglar alarm. I will report and observe as a good citizen.

If as the story has been reported holds true.. The victim here was doing just as you suggested.. Not "going and investigating his neighbors burglar alarm" But in his own garage perhaps protecting his own life and property.

Should I hear my neighbors burglar alarm go off.. I will certainly lend hand in helping my neighbor.... Hiding out and letting others be taken advantage of is not in my nature,

But I don't live in one of them Big cities like some of you do...perhaps that is the way it's done there.. In rural Texas (and OR, AK, SC, NC, CA where I have also lived) we tend to be neighborly assisting, helping, watching out for each other as best we can.

Thats not a derogatory comment on those that choose to not,, just not how I was raised, nor how my Family and I see things in our chosen environment.

Exactly and I do fully agree. I also live in a partially rural area and I will not allow my neighbor to be victimized and I am sure he would not allow the same to happen to me. We don't know what all happened in the post, but it sure is happening more frequently or perhaps because of the internet I see it that way. Mr. Cotton has it right, separate inquiry and etc. Law Enforcement also needs to be punished when these events occur, if it is the L.E.s fault. My home was burglarized, I called L.E. and when they arrived, I answered my door with my rifle in hand. He glanced at it, asked to enter and made his report. Nothing was pointed my way by this L.E. and I survived the encounter. Of course this happened over 30 years ago and I assume he knew I was not the individual he was looking for. AAARGGH every time I read things like this occurring, it lowers my expectations for L.E. support if needed. I am not blasting Police at large, I know they are doing a superhuman job, but they need to be held accountable if need be.

And therein lies the difference. Militarization of the police has and will continue to produce more results just like this one. Just look at how the police commanded people in Boston, yelling at them and treating them like they were in occupied territory. In LA they unloaded on the vehicle of two innocent women without even knowing who was in the vehicle. The bigger and more bureaucratic the department the worse the attitude. I think the undue emphasis on "officer safety" over "public safety" is also a contributing cause. I used to walk around my neighborhood with a rifle or shotgun when I was in high school, on my way to an area where we went shooting. I never had an officer draw down on me or treat me with the kind of contempt on display in Boston. Back then a contact went something more like, "hey, is that an 1100.....can I take a look at it? Nice looking gun....how you like it?"

In some places it's worse than others. I've had pretty good contacts with the DPS, and in the South in general --up in the Northeast, not so much. My small town police and sheriff deputy contacts have all been good --big cities, not so much. I find an "Us versus Them" attitude quite often in the big cities. Part of it, in the big cities, is the demonization of guns and self-defense. We're a long way from the days when it was not extraordinary for citizens in Austin to pull rifles from their vehicles and return fire on the Texas Tower sniper.