WESH: Deputies shoot, kill man after knocking on wrong door

[DjTj]

That part I think can be answered pretty simply. There was no warrant, and it wasn't a fresh pursuit.

Without a warrant, they would only have been able to arrest the suspect if he was in clear sight, right? Even if someone let them into the home they would need permission to do any kind of search?

What did they hope to accomplish by knocking on the door? They just hoped to get lucky and have the suspect open the door? Why not monitor the apartment and wait for the suspect to appear, or try to get a warrant?

Knocking on the door seems like a high risk/low reward move.

[MisterPinstripe]

Without a warrant, they would only have been able to arrest the suspect if he was in clear sight, right? Even if someone let them into the home they would need permission to do any kind of search?

What did they hope to accomplish by knocking on the door? They just hoped to get lucky and have the suspect open the door? Why not monitor the apartment and wait for the suspect to appear, or try to get a warrant?

Knocking on the door seems like a high risk/low reward move.

And arent they required to identify themselves?

[jb4348]

If it was me I would have asked who it was before I even opened the door ESP at that hour. If they didn't tell me or I felt threatened then I would have called the police and would tell whoever was at the door that cops were coming. Either way I am not opening my door to someone knocking on it at 130 in the morning. I am not sure if the its my property and I can protect it comes into play when it's an apartment and you don't own anything you rent it. I am not sure of that though. It's a shame it happened but I know I wouldn't open my door.

[Larry]

It's not "loyalty." It's an honest evaluation of the facts. I don't care if they're cops or not. If someone, again legally, knocks on someone else's door (cop or not) and finds a gun in their face, they have every right to defend themselves with deadly force.

Including the homeowner?

Does your "see gun, shoot" philosophy also justify the homeowner shooting the people on the porch who are pointing guns at him?

[Prosperity]

And arent they required to identify themselves?

There isn't a knock and announce requirement (constitutionally, though states may have their own laws) anymore. Additionally, there are some reasons that the cops would want to knock on the house. If they hear people shuffling around inside the house, they can say that it was an exigent circumstance exception to the warrant requirement (oh look people are in trouble inside, we have to bust in to help them).

[Hersh]

And I'm sorry, if you draw down on someone, it's kill or be killed. And damned skippy I'm going to try like hell to get a round off before you do.

My first thought, someone's else who has been watching Roadhouse. It's been on a lot recently.

[Teller]

Including the homeowner?

Does your "see gun, shoot" philosophy also justify the homeowner shooting the people on the porch who are pointing guns at him?

If they are pointing their weapons at him, without identifying? Absolutely.

(Sorry to burst your lil theory there, Kool.)

[DjTj]

If they are pointing their weapons at him, without identifying? Absolutely.

(Sorry to burst your lil theory there, Kool.)

So you're saying that the homeowner did the right thing by coming to the door with his gun drawn, but his mistake was not shooting first?

[Vilandil Tasardur]

So you're saying that the homeowner did the right thing by coming to the door with his gun drawn, but his mistake was not shooting first?

HIs mistake was POINTING the gun at the person knocking. If he kept it low by his leg, or even behind the door as he opened it a tad and peeked out, the police would have been able to speak to him and had an interaction. At that point, it MAY or MAY NOT have escalated, but at least a conversation would have transpired. By opening the door with the gun raised, aimed, and at eye level, he was in essence delivering the message that he was ready and willing to kill. Now, he may NOT have been willing, but the message he was portraying is that he was. And that made the cops react in a truly tragic manner.

[Teller]

So you're saying that the homeowner did the right thing by coming to the door with his gun drawn, but his mistake was not shooting first?

That's not what I'm saying at all.

I'm saying if the roles were reversed, and the homeowner found himself with a gun in his face, and people who had not identified themselves as police officers, I'd fully support him defending himself with deadly force.

[Predicto]

Tragic story. I wish I knew enough details to have an informed opinion.





oh hell why not stir the pot anyway. Sure is nice to see more evidence that having lots and lots of handguns around makes everyone safer.

[Teller]

oh hell why not stir the pot anyway. Sure is nice to see more evidence that having lots and lots of handguns around makes everyone safer.

It's one anecdotal incident. Isn't that how y'all dismiss it every time an illegal commits a crime.

[DjTj]

HIs mistake was POINTING the gun at the person knocking. If he kept it low by his leg, or even behind the door as he opened it a tad and peeked out, the police would have been able to speak to him and had an interaction. At that point, it MAY or MAY NOT have escalated, but at least a conversation would have transpired. By opening the door with the gun raised, aimed, and at eye level, he was in essence delivering the message that he was ready and willing to kill. Now, he may NOT have been willing, but the message he was portraying is that he was. And that made the cops react in a truly tragic manner.

Where does the article say that his gun was raised, aimed, and at eye level?

---------- Post added July-17th-2012 at 12:14 PM ----------

That's not what I'm saying at all.

I'm saying if the roles were reversed, and the homeowner found himself with a gun in his face, and people who had not identified themselves as police officers, I'd fully support him defending himself with deadly force.

The article doesn't say where the police were holding their guns. Maybe they had their guns drawn, and he saw that through his peephole? We are missing a lot of facts here.

[Bang]

I bet he'd be alive if he didn't have his gun for "protection".

~Bang

[Vilandil Tasardur]

Where does the article say that his gun was raised, aimed, and at eye level?

---------- Post added July-17th-2012 at 12:14 PM ----------

The article doesn't say where the police were holding their guns. Maybe they had their guns drawn, and he saw that through his peephole? We are missing a lot of facts here.

I can most certainly concede that. The article does say that when the door opened, he was "pointing the gun" at them. I am certainly guilty of interpreting that to be more than is definitively stated, but I do not feel that my message is different. I do not believe the door opened and a gun was pointing at their toes. My suspicion from the wording of this article is that the gun "pointing" at them means torso or face level. Otherwise I would assume the gun would be pointing at the ground, not at the officers. However, I am certainly making assumptions. Nevertheless, I do not believe my assumptions are outlandish given the information.

It's also unlikely that more information will ever be revealed. The only living witnesses appear to be the cops, and we have their side of the story. While I agree with you that we are missing a great deal of facts, I would mention two points.
1) When faced with a cloudy picture of the events, I will err on the side of the law enforcement until proven otherwise. Perhaps this is misguided, but I believe that the burden falls on someone to prove the cops acted wrong rather than right.
2) We will most likely never get much more information out of this story. So a decision must be made (whether to accuse and try the police) based on what we know.