When things go bang in the night (Suit for excessive force)

[ELB]

I am not sure the Crime Blotter forum is an exact post for these kinds of things, but it involves actual crime, actual shooting, not hypotheticals, so here goes:

Supreme Court declines appeal in lottery winner's excessive force suit
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/20 ... force-suit" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Highlights of story, in case the link goes dead:

During night time in April 2006, two deputies on foot are looking for a car thief on foot, in combination with a dog and a helicoptor and other cops. Sleeping homeowner awakened by his own dog barking and all the ruckus in the neighborhood. He gets his gun, goes outside, and hides in the bushes.

The two deputies pry some boards off the fence of this guy's yard and walk into the yard. The homeowner sees two figures move into his yard and calls out "Halt!" The deputies turn flashlights towards homeowner.

Deputies say they identified themselves as police officers three times and told him to put his gun down, but the homeowner instead raised his pistol, so they shot him seven times.

Homeowner (who survived) says he saw two figures come into his yard and when he called out they immediately shot him, THEN shouted identification, then shot him agains. Homeowner says he never pointed his gun at them, and kept it pointed at ground.

Homeowner is suing them for excessive force. Deputies have claimed qualified immunity. None of the lower courts have agreed with them, and the SCOTUS turned down deputies' appeal, so now the suit can go forward.

Interesting factoid #1: One of the deputies had an open mike on his uniform. According to the court record, the dispatch recording does NOT show either deputy identifying themselves before shooting.

Interesting factoid #2: The deputies and the sheriff's department have been sanctioned for destroying evidence in the case despite homeowner's lawyer's request to preserve it, to include: a laptop computer, the deputies's uniforms, their guns, all the department emails for that day, and all the emails for a year afterwards.

Trivia factoid: The homeowner had won the Florida Lotto two years earlier.

[Excaliber]

Another consistent illustration of why going outside to investigate a potential trespass is not just a bad idea, it's a really bad idea unless you have no other way to protect something that's essential to your livelihood.

This doesn't sound like one of those latter cases.

[RoyGBiv]

the homeowner instead raised his pistol, so they shot him seven times.

Homeowner (who survived) ..............

Trivia factoid: The homeowner had won the Florida Lotto two years earlier.

Homeowner won the lottery at least twice then....

[The Annoyed Man]

Another consistent illustration of why going outside to investigate a potential trespass is not just a bad idea, it's a really bad idea unless you have no other way to protect something that's essential to your livelihood.

This doesn't sound like one of those latter cases.

Hah! You beat me to it, and I was going to cite you as the expert!

No opinion on the legitimacy of use of force. The cops involved may be scootchie, or maybe they're legit and the open mike simply didn't pick up everything. Who knows?

It took 7 gunshot wounds for the homeowner to be in a position to collect damages from the police. I don't call that "winning a second lottery." You couldn't pay me enough to absorb 7 bullets as a condition of payout. The odds are simply too daunting.

[RoyGBiv]

I wasn't referring to collecting damages...

He's alive... That's a lottery win after taking 7 shots.

[The Annoyed Man]

I wasn't referring to collecting damages...

He's alive... That's a lottery win after taking 7 shots.

You got that right.

[ELB]

It is also illustrative of the idea that it is a really bad idea to mess with the evidence after the fact. See Campos and Ramos (IIRC their names). The evidence may not look great for you, but destroying it or hiding it pretty much screams guilty of something.