CanyonAg77 said:

---

Quote:

---

Again it was a domestic disturbance which the complaint believed was violent

---

Again, it was an upset neighbor, with no knowledge, who called it in that way.

With the emergence of "SWAT-ing", cops are fools to believe what people call in.

People call 911 because McDonalds ran out of chicken nuggets. I don't think the cops charged in and shot the fry cook.

---

Even if it was a bs call the responding officers wouldn't know. The cops were responding to a domestic disturbance call not a noise complaint. They only know the details that are relayed to them by dispatch.

The cops In this scenario didn't charge in and shoot anyone. The subject charged out with a firearm and provoked a reaction.

Swatting is not a very common occurrence. Cops would be stupid to assume that when they're likely responding to multiple legitimate domestic Incidents every week.

It's legal for the guy to answer the door with his gun! You are defending the indefensible. He never threatened the officers. They have a very difficult job, but they can't go around shooting people who are not a threat. I'm not saying put the guy in jail for 20 years, but I am saying that the guy should lose his job, since he's too jumpy to qualify as an officer, and the department needs to pay damages to the family for the negligence of their officer.

combat wombat said:

---

deddog said:

---

combat wombat said:

---

So the guy upstairs called 911 TWICE for a noise complaint? He didn't bother going down and asking his neighbor to keep it down? Now his neighbor is dead.

---

The neighbor called because he thought there was a domestic disturbance. Neighbor called twice, and said that he thuoght the couple was fighting.
Which might explain why the cops were on edge.

Still no need to shoot, he was obeying orders

---

I do not believe for one minute that the caller thought it was actually DV. Based upon the words he used, he said whatever he thought he needed to say to get the police there faster. He was annoyed and pissed at his neighbors for being noisy... and at the cops for being slow.

Noise complaints are not 911 calls.

---

We'll find out for sure eventually. If it was a bogus call then he will likely face charges.

Artorias said:

---

SirLurksALot said:

---

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Quote:

---

Again it was a domestic disturbance which the complaint believed was violent

---

Again, it was an upset neighbor, with no knowledge, who called it in that way.

With the emergence of "SWAT-ing", cops are fools to believe what people call in.

People call 911 because McDonalds ran out of chicken nuggets. I don't think the cops charged in and shot the fry cook.

---

Even if it was a bs call the responding officers wouldn't know. The cops were responding to a domestic disturbance call not a noise complaint. They only know the details that are relayed to them by dispatch.

The cops In this scenario didn't charge in and shoot anyone. The subject charged out with a firearm and provoked a reaction.

Swatting is not a very common occurrence. Cops would be stupid to assume that when they're likely responding to multiple legitimate domestic Incidents every week.

---

You see, it is this ridiculous language you keep using that is making it difficult for anyone to take your position seriously. He did not "charge" out. That is just ridiculous.

---

I only used that language in response to ridiculous language that was used in the post I quoted.

In Arizona, it looks like this could possibly meet the qualifications for 2nd Degree Murder (10-22 yrs), but I would understand a prosecutor pushing for Manslaughter (7-21 yrs).

SirLurksALot said:

---

Sims said:

---

Quote:

---

The door way is referred to as the fatal funnel and it is emphasized during training to stay out of it.

---

Looks to be true in this case as well.

The door is known as the fatal funnel because people don't enter or exit their house through the wall or skylight.

I mean, this kind of training gets in peoples heads and makes them react in unnecessary ways. Of course most deaths occur in a doorway.

---

So, it would make sense to stay out of the doorway then.

---

No - the doorway is a corollary. We accept that nearly all interactions will occur in or at a doorway. With that being accepted fact, we can then project that nearly all police interactions at a residence, good or bad, will also occur at a doorway.

To train as if the doorway itself is going to kill you - well, you're going to put some things in officers heads that lead to....this.

Shagga said:

---

It's legal for the guy to answer the door with his gun! You are defending the indefensible. He never threatened the officers. They have a very difficult job, but they can't go around shooting people who are not a threat. I'm not saying put the guy in jail for 20 years, but I am saying that the guy should lose his job, since he's too jumpy to qualify as an officer, and the department needs to pay damages to the family for the negligence of their officer.

---

Wether the subjects actions were legal is not the standard that is looked at by the justice system. The system looks at the actions of the officer from the officer's perspective in order to determine if their actions were objectively reasonable. In other words would a reasonable officer in the same situation make a similar decision. If the answer is yes then the force is justified.

As I said earlier, my opinion at this point is the cop panicked. I don't necessarily disagree that it was "wrong" decision based on the available facts. I just think that based on the totality of the circumstances it's going to be hard to meet the legal standard to assert the shooting wasn't justified.

Sims said:

---

SirLurksALot said:

---

Sims said:

---

Quote:

---

The door way is referred to as the fatal funnel and it is emphasized during training to stay out of it.

---

Looks to be true in this case as well.

The door is known as the fatal funnel because people don't enter or exit their house through the wall or skylight.

I mean, this kind of training gets in peoples heads and makes them react in unnecessary ways. Of course most deaths occur in a doorway.

---

So, it would make sense to stay out of the doorway then.

---

No - the doorway is a corollary. We accept that nearly all interactions will occur in or at a doorway. With that being accepted fact, we can then project that nearly all police interactions at a residence, good or bad, will also occur at a doorway.

To train as if the doorway itself is going to kill you - well, you're going to put some things in officers heads that lead to....this.

---

No it's not. You're trained to either go inside or ask the person to come outside. The whole idea is to minimize the amount of time in the doorway. A majority of the interactions don't happen in doorways for this reason.

The training isn't that doorway will kill you. It's that doorway is more dangerous because it's a funnel that limits movement. The objective is to minimize the amount of time in the doorway. The same is true of hallways.

SirLurksALot said:

---

Sims said:

---

SirLurksALot said:

---

Sims said:

---

Quote:

---

The door way is referred to as the fatal funnel and it is emphasized during training to stay out of it.

---

Looks to be true in this case as well.

The door is known as the fatal funnel because people don't enter or exit their house through the wall or skylight.

I mean, this kind of training gets in peoples heads and makes them react in unnecessary ways. Of course most deaths occur in a doorway.

---

So, it would make sense to stay out of the doorway then.

---

No - the doorway is a corollary. We accept that nearly all interactions will occur in or at a doorway. With that being accepted fact, we can then project that nearly all police interactions at a residence, good or bad, will also occur at a doorway.

To train as if the doorway itself is going to kill you - well, you're going to put some things in officers heads that lead to....this.

---

No it's not. You're trained to either go inside or ask the person to come outside. The whole idea is to minimize the amount of time in the doorway. A majority of the interactions don't happen in doorways for this reason.

The training isn't that doorway will kill you. It's that doorway is more dangerous because it's a funnel that limits movement. The objective is to minimize the amount of time in the doorway. The same is true of hallways.

---

Probably semantics is where we differ, but I disagree. I think, at least initially, most interactions begin in the doorway. They may move, but I believe most start there. That's what I'm trying to say.

SirLurksALot said:

---

hurricanejake02 said:

---

You realize that the way you worded that response, it sounds like you're checking off the boxes to be able to shoot, right?

... I mean, we said it, so we can shoot now, right?

---

I'm only providing the legal standards that justify the use of force.

They identified themselves is a reasonable manner.

---

They did not. Too many people impersonate cops for me to believe them without seeing a badge.

You can hold up your badge to the peep hole obstructing the person's view of what is on the other side of the door to identify yourself, while standing to the side so that if someone shoots through the door you are our of harms way.

That is easy, allows the person to identify the officer, and allows the officer to stay out of the line of fire. it also allows the partner to cover the doorway when the door is opened.

WTF would the officers set up in preparation for a potential shoot out unless they had backup, had been notified that shots had already been fired, or been alerted upon arrival that someone was threatening people with a gun?

In short there was no reason for the level of aggression they were prepared for upon their arrival.

They gave the VICTIM no reasonable way to comply or identify them as LEO'S.

everything about this is wrong.

Quote:

---

The subject charged out with a firearm and provoked a reaction.

---

Disagree.

Quote:

---

Swatting is not a very common occurrence

---

Lots of things are uncommon.

I'm much more likely to step on a non-venomous snake than I am a rattlesnake. Doesn't mean I don't keep rattlesnakes in mind.

SirLurksALot said:

---

Artorias said:

---

SirLurksALot said:

---

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Quote:

---

Again it was a domestic disturbance which the complaint believed was violent

---

Again, it was an upset neighbor, with no knowledge, who called it in that way.

With the emergence of "SWAT-ing", cops are fools to believe what people call in.

People call 911 because McDonalds ran out of chicken nuggets. I don't think the cops charged in and shot the fry cook.

---

Even if it was a bs call the responding officers wouldn't know. The cops were responding to a domestic disturbance call not a noise complaint. They only know the details that are relayed to them by dispatch.

The cops In this scenario didn't charge in and shoot anyone. The subject charged out with a firearm and provoked a reaction.

Swatting is not a very common occurrence. Cops would be stupid to assume that when they're likely responding to multiple legitimate domestic Incidents every week.

---

You see, it is this ridiculous language you keep using that is making it difficult for anyone to take your position seriously. He did not "charge" out. That is just ridiculous.

---

I only used that language in response to ridiculous language that was used in the post I quoted.

---

Bullcrap

Sid Farkas said:

---

Dont aggressively answer your door by walking out with a gun in your hand esp when you hear the cops announcing themselves before you open?

this guy didnt handle the situation right at all. he gave the cops all the fear/reason they needed to overreact

of course, if the decedent was black the story would be completely different

---

I am not going to believe it is the cops if I can't ****ing see them

He was putting his arms down and was dropping to his knees.

The cops needs prison.

He murdered someone not a threat to him based on that video

I would hate to be a cop on a DV call. Tempers are already flaring and the people involved are unpredictable. Police must be working hard to keep their own adrenaline under control when they don't know what is on the other side of the door, what the parties look like, or what weapons they have.

It appears to me the cop on the right just saw the guy hide the gun behind his back and panicked. I don't think the deceased even knew the other cop was there and the cop on the right couldn't see him trying to put the gun down because his hand was inside the doorway. The cop on the right probably thought he had to protect his partner and assumed the guy was trying to conceal the weapon. I didn't hear the audio, but that is what I saw.

Quote:

---

As I said earlier, my opinion at this point is the cop panicked. ... it's going to be hard to meet the legal standard to assert the shooting wasn't justified.

---

Dueling statements in one post.

Ags4DaWin said:

---

SirLurksALot said:

---

hurricanejake02 said:

---

You realize that the way you worded that response, it sounds like you're checking off the boxes to be able to shoot, right?

... I mean, we said it, so we can shoot now, right?

---

I'm only providing the legal standards that justify the use of force.

They identified themselves is a reasonable manner.

---

They did not. Too many people impersonate cops for me to believe them without seeing a badge.

You can hold up your badge to the peep hole obstructing the person's view of what is on the other side of the door to identify yourself, while standing to the side so that if someone shoots through the door you are our of harms way.

That is easy, allows the person to identify the officer, and allows the officer to stay out of the line of fire. it also allows the partner to cover the doorway when the door is opened.

WTF would the officers set up in preparation for a potential shoot out unless they had backup, had been notified that shots had already been fired, or been alerted upon arrival that someone had a gun?

In short there was no reason for the level of aggression they were prepared for upon their arrival.

They gave the VICTIM no reasonable way to comply or identify them as LEO'S.

everything about this is wrong.

---

Yes, they can hold up credentials or a badge, and they likely would've done that if the subject asked them to.

Again, it is Normal procedure to stand out of the doorway. This is training that is done by every law enforcement agency in the country. This is done for every call, but is especially reinforced for domestic calls.

If the subject isn't sure who is at the door then there are reasonable actions he can take to make sure they're legitimate cops. However, if you open the door , step outside with a firearm, and shout "what" then then every cop in that situation is going to perceive you as a threat.

AustinAg2012 said:

---

He's white, so none of this matters.

---

When it happens to blacks the response is outrage, so it matters.

When it happens to whites the response is sarcasm. So it doesn't matter.

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Quote:

---

As I said earlier, my opinion at this point is the cop panicked. ... it's going to be hard to meet the legal standard to assert the shooting wasn't justified.

---

Dueling statements in one post.

---

Not really. Just because it wasn't the best decision in the situation doesn't mean that it was an illegal decision.

CanyonAg77 said:

---

SirLurksALot said:

---

Artorias said:

---

SirLurksALot said:

---

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Quote:

---

Again it was a domestic disturbance which the complaint believed was violent

---

Again, it was an upset neighbor, with no knowledge, who called it in that way.

With the emergence of "SWAT-ing", cops are fools to believe what people call in.

People call 911 because McDonalds ran out of chicken nuggets. I don't think the cops charged in and shot the fry cook.

---

Even if it was a bs call the responding officers wouldn't know. The cops were responding to a domestic disturbance call not a noise complaint. They only know the details that are relayed to them by dispatch.

The cops In this scenario didn't charge in and shoot anyone. The subject charged out with a firearm and provoked a reaction.

Swatting is not a very common occurrence. Cops would be stupid to assume that when they're likely responding to multiple legitimate domestic Incidents every week.

---

You see, it is this ridiculous language you keep using that is making it difficult for anyone to take your position seriously. He did not "charge" out. That is just ridiculous.

---

I only used that language in response to ridiculous language that was used in the post I quoted.

---

Bullcrap

---

Do you think this is a an accurate comparison of the situation?

"People call 911 because McDonalds ran out of chicken nuggets. I don't think the cops charged in and shot the fry cook."

TXK said:

---

AustinAg2012 said:

---

He's white, so none of this matters.

---

So say or do something about it. How about that? Instead of moaning that people don't care about injustice against white people, do something. Otherwise don't get salty when other people care and do something when it matters to them.

---

His skin color makes him irrelevant. You are plenty smart to know this. You can deflect all you want but there is no chance in hell any social movement or rioting takes place for this

Yeah just think how "white lives matter" would go over.

SirLurksALot said:

---

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Quote:

---

As I said earlier, my opinion at this point is the cop panicked. ... it's going to be hard to meet the legal standard to assert the shooting wasn't justified.

---

Dueling statements in one post.

---

Not really. Just because it wasn't the best decision in the situation doesn't mean that it was an illegal decision.

---

If I bang on your door out of sight and scream cops, you will believe it is cops?

Tanya 93 said:

---

SirLurksALot said:

---

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Quote:

---

As I said earlier, my opinion at this point is the cop panicked. ... it's going to be hard to meet the legal standard to assert the shooting wasn't justified.

---

Dueling statements in one post.

---

Not really. Just because it wasn't the best decision in the situation doesn't mean that it was an illegal decision.

---

If I bang on your door out of sight and scream cops, you will believe it is cops?

---

No I ask through the door for them to show identification. I don't open the door and step outside with a gun. I know that that would provoke a response if they are real cops.

SirLurksALot said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

SirLurksALot said:

---

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Quote:

---

As I said earlier, my opinion at this point is the cop panicked. ... it's going to be hard to meet the legal standard to assert the shooting wasn't justified.

---

Dueling statements in one post.

---

Not really. Just because it wasn't the best decision in the situation doesn't mean that it was an illegal decision.

---

If I bang on your door out of sight and scream cops, you will believe it is cops?

---

No I ask through the door for them to show identification. I don't open the door and step outside with a gun. I know that that would provoke a response if they are real cops.

---

Interesting that you think the dead did something wrong when they clearly didn't.

I don't live in a big city, but I do not fault anyone grabbing a gun when people not visible bang on the door.

He was obviously not a threat and the ****wad shot him because is not worthy of being a cop.
And his partner is an *******.

Tanya 93 said:

---

SirLurksALot said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

SirLurksALot said:

---

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Quote:

---

As I said earlier, my opinion at this point is the cop panicked. ... it's going to be hard to meet the legal standard to assert the shooting wasn't justified.

---

Dueling statements in one post.

---

Not really. Just because it wasn't the best decision in the situation doesn't mean that it was an illegal decision.

---

If I bang on your door out of sight and scream cops, you will believe it is cops?

---

No I ask through the door for them to show identification. I don't open the door and step outside with a gun. I know that that would provoke a response if they are real cops.

---

Interesting that you think the dead did something wrong when they clearly didn't.

I don't live in a big city, but I do not fault anyone grabbing a gun when people not visible bang on the door.

He was obviously not a threat and the ****wad shot him because is not worthy of being a cop.
And his partner is an *******.

---

The question you asked is what would I do if someone banged on the door and said police in the middle of the night. If you think an appropriate response in that situation is to walk outside with a gun, then I really don't know what to say.

He might not have heard them say police from inside.

i tend to give the cops the benefit of the doubt, but the police here took away every opportunity the victim had to identify them and comply.

the manner in which they knocked on the door was short, loud, and aggressive. on the audio i had difficulty understanding what they were saying and if this guy had his stereo up, video game or tv loud there is no wY he understood or heard anything but the loud knock. he obviously was not able to identify the police officers based on their knock and shout. we can deduce this based on 2 things:

1) Once he was able to visually identify the officers he made motions to surrender and comply and abandon his firearm. It is therefore reasonable to deduce that had he been able to audibly identify the officers he would not have answered the door with his firearm.
2) The reaction to the officers once he identifies them is one of surprise and retreat and surrender. If he had audibly identified the officers based on their knock/shout he would not have been surprised and retreated upon opening the door. He would have intended continued aggression with his firearm and moved to shoot the officer. He did not make any such moves.

Therefore we can determine the officers failed to reasonably identify themselves audibly which is your claim.

furthermore, even if they HAD identified themselves adequately through audible means as you claim, audible identification is insufficient for a citizen to determine that they are interacting with a police officer. visual identification is necessary which is why patrol officers are issued uniforms and why ALL police are issued badges.

1) They took away the victim's ability to visually identify them by staying out of the way of the peephole.

2) They further took away his ability to visually identify them by shining their light in his face.

Then they failed to give him time to comply with their requests even as he made motions and attempted to surrender.

You must give a citizen a means to identify you as well as time to comply with your orders.

Neither of those requirements were met in this case.

There. Is. No. Excuse. The shooting is unjustifiable.

Manslaughter for the shooting cop and immediate firing- no benefits for the partner.

SirLurksALot said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

SirLurksALot said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

SirLurksALot said:

---

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Quote:

---

As I said earlier, my opinion at this point is the cop panicked. ... it's going to be hard to meet the legal standard to assert the shooting wasn't justified.

---

Dueling statements in one post.

---

Not really. Just because it wasn't the best decision in the situation doesn't mean that it was an illegal decision.

---

If I bang on your door out of sight and scream cops, you will believe it is cops?

---

No I ask through the door for them to show identification. I don't open the door and step outside with a gun. I know that that would provoke a response if they are real cops.

---

Interesting that you think the dead did something wrong when they clearly didn't.

I don't live in a big city, but I do not fault anyone grabbing a gun when people not visible bang on the door.

He was obviously not a threat and the ****wad shot him because is not worthy of being a cop.
And his partner is an *******.

---

The question you asked is what would I do if someone banged on the door and said police in the middle of the night. If you think an appropriate response in that situation is to walk outside with a gun, then I really don't know what to say.

---

The cop was standing outside with a gun. Was that inappropriate?

Sid Farkas said:

---

Dont aggressively answer your door by walking out with a gun in your hand esp when you hear the cops announcing themselves before you open?

this guy didnt handle the situation right at all. he gave the cops all the fear/reason they needed to overreact

of course, if the decedent was black the story would be completely different

---

You are right. Nobody would say they were the police when they were not. Also I guess you should not even be able to have a gun in your hand in your own house.

96ags said:

---

SirLurksALot said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

SirLurksALot said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

SirLurksALot said:

---

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Quote:

---

As I said earlier, my opinion at this point is the cop panicked. ... it's going to be hard to meet the legal standard to assert the shooting wasn't justified.

---

Dueling statements in one post.

---

Not really. Just because it wasn't the best decision in the situation doesn't mean that it was an illegal decision.

---

If I bang on your door out of sight and scream cops, you will believe it is cops?

---

No I ask through the door for them to show identification. I don't open the door and step outside with a gun. I know that that would provoke a response if they are real cops.

---

Interesting that you think the dead did something wrong when they clearly didn't.

I don't live in a big city, but I do not fault anyone grabbing a gun when people not visible bang on the door.

He was obviously not a threat and the ****wad shot him because is not worthy of being a cop.
And his partner is an *******.

---

The question you asked is what would I do if someone banged on the door and said police in the middle of the night. If you think an appropriate response in that situation is to walk outside with a gun, then I really don't know what to say.

---

The cop was standing outside with a gun. Was that inappropriate?

---

Yeah he's responding to a call of domestic violence.

Look if you wanna walk out with a gun when the cops knock on your door then go ahead. Just don't be mad if they perceive it as a threat.

read my post above.

he did not know it was the cops who knocked.

back down. you are so wrong its not even funny. admit ur wrong and walk away.

I've been around a ton of cops when I had a gun in my hand and I have never been shot.

I don't hang out with nutjobs though, so that could be a difference.

SirDippinDots said:

---

Sid Farkas said:

---

Dont aggressively answer your door by walking out with a gun in your hand esp when you hear the cops announcing themselves before you open?

this guy didnt handle the situation right at all. he gave the cops all the fear/reason they needed to overreact

of course, if the decedent was black the story would be completely different

---

You are right. Nobody would say they were the police when they were not. Also I guess you should not even be able to have a gun in your hand in your own house.

---

Even if the subject thought the people outside were bad actors, then it's still stupid to go out with a gun. Why would you leave cover and expose yourself? Or make it easier for the bad actors to get inside by unlocking the door?

96ags said:

---

I've been around a ton of cops when I had a gun in my hand and I have never been shot.

I don't hang out with nutjobs though, so that could be a difference.

---

Were those cops responding to a domestic violence call?

Did you walk towards them while shouting with the gun in your hand.

I'd bet your circumstances were a lot different.