quote:

Originally posted by jdmb03:

quote:

Originally posted by chongosuerte:

What if it had been the UPS guy? A Morman? The water meter guy?

I doubt the UPS person is knocking at 11:30PM.

Tweren't Mormons neither...

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by bubbatime:

It was an arrest warrant. And you can bet your ass any good cop will check with the neighbors (i.e. be at the "wrong house"" while looking for a wanted suspect.

It appears that you can lead a dog to water.... but then it drinks fucking sand and dies.

Sure is an awful lot of assumptions and speculations going on from those condemning others for making assumptions and speculations.

What you said is pure conjecture about what happened in an effort to rationalize your point of view. What's that about drinking sand?

I'm more alarmed by the fact he seems to be claiming there's no need to get the address right on an arrest warrant.

quote:

Originally posted by GregY:

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by bubbatime:

It was an arrest warrant. And you can bet your ass any good cop will check with the neighbors (i.e. be at the "wrong house"" while looking for a wanted suspect.

It appears that you can lead a dog to water.... but then it drinks fucking sand and dies.

Sure is an awful lot of assumptions and speculations going on from those condemning others for making assumptions and speculations.

What you said is pure conjecture about what happened in an effort to rationalize your point of view. What's that about drinking sand?

I'm more alarmed by the fact he seems to be claiming there's no need to get the address right on an arrest warrant.

What if the address on the warrant is wrong?

I used to have a gig where I would serve a lot of warrants, or try. Something around 20 attempts a day. Addresses on warrants are sourced from the DMV, prior court paperwork, or whatever the person applying gave the magistrate. And in most states, anybody can walk in and swear out a misdemeanor warrant. The officer serving an arrest warrant is rarely the same one that provided the address on the thing.

Out of the 20 a day, most days two of them were correct.

Can you begin to fathom why the concept of going to the "wrong" location to serve an arrest warrant (or a call for service) is an everyday, usually multiple times a day, fact of life?

It looks like that's not the case here. They had the correct address on the warrant, and they were knocking on a neighbor's door at 11:30pm. But you can maybe understand why we waited for more info before we lit our torches.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by jdmb03:

quote:

Originally posted by chongosuerte:

What if it had been the UPS guy? A Morman? The water meter guy?

I doubt the UPS person is knocking at 11:30PM.

Tweren't Mormons neither...

We didn't know a time when I said that, however I've had UPS ring the doorbell after 9pm, and I've ordered pizzas well after 10pm.

But that isn't the point, as you know.

You know what kids do when they make a mistake? They come up with all sorts of reasons it wasn't there fault, then they admit it was there fault, but come up with all sorts of reasons why it was ok including blaming the other party.

Time of day, gun at his side or pointed out the door, clean record, nice guy, the mindset of the officers or the homeowner; none of this matters. It's noise, it's child like reasoning. There is no double standard as far as the reporting either. Both sides agree the police were at the wrong house, then shot and killed the homeowner. Only one party had the ability to prevent the police from being at the wrong house and it wasn't the homeowner. As such, only one party has the ability to prevent this from happening in the future and it isn't the dead home owner.

quote:

Originally posted by trapper189:
You know what kids do when they make a mistake? They come up with all sorts of reasons it wasn't there fault, then they admit it was there fault, but come up with all sorts of reasons why it was ok including blaming the other party.

Time of day, gun at his side or pointed out the door, clean record, nice guy, the mindset of the officers or the homeowner; none of this matters. It's noise, it's child like reasoning. There is no double standard as far as the reporting either. Both sides agree the police were at the wrong house, then shot and killed the homeowner. Only one party had the ability to prevent the police from being at the wrong house and it wasn't the homeowner. As such, only one party has the ability to prevent this from happening in the future and it isn't the dead home owner.

You don't understand trapper, the officers were in a scary situation, so any innocents they may kill are acceptable collateral damage.

Chongo,

Am I to understand that regardless of what the majority of us here think, it is perfectly okay for LEO to go to whichever address they feel like to serve an arrest warrant, regardless of whether it is the address for the person listed on the warrant? Seems like this situation could be used as a back door way to game the system by the police!

Here's an example: Goonbury Police Department has a warrant to arrest Joe Don Dufus. Instead of going to his house though, they'd "accidentally" go after a "gun owner" that lives close by. They know there will be guns present in the home, so they've already got justification for shooting the guy dead in the middle of the night, regardless of whether he had it on him or not. The word of a police officer would be the only required evidence in your book. Seems like something out of a bad movie about a 3rd world country.

Come on man. There is so much corruption in towns all across America, this isn't outside the realm of possibility.

quote:

Originally posted by trapper189:
You know what kids do when they make a mistake? They come up with all sorts of reasons it wasn't there fault, then they admit it was there fault, but come up with all sorts of reasons why it was ok including blaming the other party.

Time of day, gun at his side or pointed out the door, clean record, nice guy, the mindset of the officers or the homeowner; none of this matters. It's noise, it's child like reasoning. There is no double standard as far as the reporting either. Both sides agree the police where at the wrong house. Only one party had the ability to prevent the police from being at the wrong house and it wasn't the homeowner. As such, only one party has the ability to prevent this from happening in the future and it isn't the dead home owner.

One of three things probably happened.

1. The police knowingly shot and killed an unarmed man, and his dog, which puts them squarely at fault.

2. The victim answered the door by pointing a gun and was shot by officers thinking they were facing an imminent deadly threat.

3. The victim answered the door and the officers thought his dog was going to attack them, so they shoot the dog. The victim is standing there holding a gun, and the officers (who just walked by his "Don't worry about the dog, beware of the owner and his gun" sign) perceived him as a continued threat and shoot.


I'm GUESSING options 1 and 2 aren't as likely as option 3. Option 3 sucks. I live my life in ways to avoid option 3s every day I work, because I realize they can really happen, and nobody wins, and they can USUALLY be avoided by using common sense, double checking information, and taking your time before taking action.

This is a DISCUSSION FORUM. I and others take time out of our days to DISCUSS how things may have happened, giving you explanations based on our training and experiences that you're not going to hear sitting around your coffee table pontificating with others that have never done the job. When we have lawyer questions, the lawyers take their time to DISCUSS. When we have appliance questions, our resident appliance experts take time out of their day to DISCUSS. When we have airplane questions, our pilots come by to DISCUSS.

We may not be right, but we want to account for why things may have happened before we rush to judgement.

See, that is what we do every day. If we just jumped on everybody that we thought could deserve it based on one side's information or a quick observation, we know we would be wrong most of the time. And that would put a lot of innocent people in jail. So we have learned to evaluate before we decide, and look for justification before we resolve that a person is guilty and needs to be crucified. Because if we didn't, life would suck for a lot of people.

For us it's not an evening's leisure banter in the comfort of our Lazy boy, it's listening to four people explain how an accident happened in the middle of a thunderstorm while your're trying to clear a 4 car accident in the middle of a busy intersection, or trying to figure our way through a 2am drunk domestic while two children wail and a mother and father argue at the top of their lungs. It's charging someone with a crime, but after you have evaluated all the information and spoken to the victim and witnesses, having to go to the district attorney and ask for the charges to be dismissed. It's knowing something happened one way, and spending hours and days and weeks investigating it, only to find out that you were completely wrong.

And we're perfectly fine with driving the bus to run over officers in scenario #1. Scenario #3 is what really scares us, though.

So if you don't want to DISCUSS anything, with the people who actually DO IT EVERYDAY, why are you here?

I think an arrest warrant is not the same as a search warrant. It doesn't matter where you are if you have an arrest warrant against you as you will be arrested where ever you are.

However if you are going to a suspects residence to arrest him, then you should go to the address of the suspect and not a neighbor.

quote:

Originally posted by mutedblade:
Chongo,

Am I to understand that regardless of what the majority of us here think, it is perfectly okay for LEO to go to whichever address they feel like to serve an arrest warrant, regardless of whether it is the address for the person listed on the warrant? Seems like this situation could be used as a back door way to game the system by the police!

Here's an example: Goonbury Police Department has a warrant to arrest Joe Don Dufus. Instead of going to his house though, they'd "accidentally" go after a "gun owner" that lives close by. They know there will be guns present in the home, so they've already got justification for shooting the guy dead in the middle of the night, regardless of whether he had it on him or not. The word of a police officer would be the only required evidence in your book. Seems like something out of a bad movie about a 3rd world country.

Come on man. There is so much corruption in towns all across America, this isn't outside the realm of possibility.

Exactly how do you infer that gobbledygook from anything I've posted, in this thread or otherwise?

quote:

Originally posted by chongosuerte:....One of three things probably happened.

1. The police knowingly shot and killed an unarmed man, and his dog, which puts them squarely at fault.

2. The victim answered the door by pointing a gun and was shot by officers thinking they were facing an imminent deadly threat.

3. The victim answered the door and the officers thought his dog was going to attack them, so they shoot the dog. The victim is standing there holding a gun, and the officers (who just walked by his "Don't worry about the dog, beware of the owner and his gun" sign) perceived him as a continued threat and shoot....

It seems there is a possibility #4, which you didn't mention, and which seems to be the assertion of the dead person's widow and atty -- the now dead person didn't have a gun.

quote:

Originally posted by chongosuerte:

quote:

Originally posted by mutedblade:
Chongo,

Am I to understand that regardless of what the majority of us here think, it is perfectly okay for LEO to go to whichever address they feel like to serve an arrest warrant, regardless of whether it is the address for the person listed on the warrant? Seems like this situation could be used as a back door way to game the system by the police!

Here's an example: Goonbury Police Department has a warrant to arrest Joe Don Dufus. Instead of going to his house though, they'd "accidentally" go after a "gun owner" that lives close by. They know there will be guns present in the home, so they've already got justification for shooting the guy dead in the middle of the night, regardless of whether he had it on him or not. The word of a police officer would be the only required evidence in your book. Seems like something out of a bad movie about a 3rd world country.

Come on man. There is so much corruption in towns all across America, this isn't outside the realm of possibility.

Exactly how do you infer that gobbledygook from anything I've posted, in this thread or otherwise?

Yeah, that was a bit off the deep end.

quote:

Originally posted by Paten:
I think an arrest warrant is not the same as a search warrant. It doesn't matter where you are if you have an arrest warrant against you as you will be arrested where ever you are.

However if you are going to a suspects residence to arrest him, then you should go to the address of the suspect and not a neighbor.

Correct. I'll expand a bit more.

A search warrant is very specific. It's specific in time, place, people, and things. It even expires if it is not served within a day or two. It can only be served by officers with jurisdiction at the location the warrant is to be served.

Arrest warrants are also very specific. They are specific to a single person, and tell you where the person issuing that warrant thinks they live. They do not expire, though, and can be served nation-wide, depending on the extradition agreed upon by the issuing jurisdiction.

An officer MAY enter a person's home to arrest them for an arrest warrant, only if the location is the same location on the arrest warrant, and they have reason to believe the person is actually in the house.

If it is outside of those parameters, officers may not enter a third party's residence, or a location not listed on the arrest warrant, without a search warrant for that location, specifically for the person wanted on the arrest warrant, barring exigent circumstances that will be closely reviewed for appropriateness.

As described earlier, officers (and detectives, FBI, US Marshals, etc.) commonly, as in standard-practice, seek information from neighbors in attempts to serve arrest warrants. At this point that does not appear to be the case in this incident. But to make a blanket statement that officers serving a warrant at location A have no business going to location B is not accurate. At 11:30pm, they better have a really good explanation that anybody would agree with.

quote:

Originally posted by Scoutmaster:

quote:

Originally posted by chongosuerte:....One of three things probably happened.

1. The police knowingly shot and killed an unarmed man, and his dog, which puts them squarely at fault.

It seems there is a possibility #4, which you didn't mention, and which seems to be the assertion of the dead person's widow and atty -- the now dead person didn't have a gun.

Re-read.

However the attorney and wife have said there was a gun on the couch near the victim. Nonetheless, there is still the chance he didn't have it in his hand, which I gave as #1.

^ The chongos and joneses and pantless-Kevins of the LE world are not the problem, and their participation is always appreciated. My ire is never directed at them or most here.

quote:

Originally posted by chongosuerte:....

Re-read. ...

You are correct, I read too fast.

(But I will blame my optometrist, these new bifocals don't work )

quote:

This is a DISCUSSION FORUM. I and others take time out of our days to DISCUSS how things may have happened, giving you explanations based on our training and experiences that you're not going to hear sitting around your coffee table pontificating with others that have never done the job. When we have lawyer questions, the lawyers take their time to DISCUSS. When we have appliance questions, our resident appliance experts take time out of their day to DISCUSS. When we have airplane questions, our pilots come by to DISCUSS.

Well put. That is exactly why I am a member of this Forum. I will admit that it is entertaining when individuals with no legal or medical experience offer opinions on the best way to handle legal proceedings or deal with a health issue. I obtain insight here from LEO that I would not obtain otherwise, and I apply it in my daily life as to how I approach interactions with law enforcement. Thank you for taking the time.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by chongosuerte:

quote:

Originally posted by mutedblade:
Chongo,

Am I to understand that regardless of what the majority of us here think, it is perfectly okay for LEO to go to whichever address they feel like to serve an arrest warrant, regardless of whether it is the address for the person listed on the warrant? Seems like this situation could be used as a back door way to game the system by the police!

Here's an example: Goonbury Police Department has a warrant to arrest Joe Don Dufus. Instead of going to his house though, they'd "accidentally" go after a "gun owner" that lives close by. They know there will be guns present in the home, so they've already got justification for shooting the guy dead in the middle of the night, regardless of whether he had it on him or not. The word of a police officer would be the only required evidence in your book. Seems like something out of a bad movie about a 3rd world country.

Come on man. There is so much corruption in towns all across America, this isn't outside the realm of possibility.

Exactly how do you infer that gobbledygook from anything I've posted, in this thread or otherwise?

Yeah, that was a bit off the deep end.

I apologize for the grandiose example, it was for illustrative purposes only but I can honestly see this scenario playing out somewhere here in the USA and definitely in Mexico. There are somewhere close to 1 million active LEO's. I am a very strong supporter of LEOs but don't for a minute think that there aren't bad apples in any group of people, therefore, I can assume that a little corruption is plausible. While not all that are corrupt are capable of murder, I do believe that there are some that truly have no qualms doing so, therefore this situation to me is also plausible.

As to Chongo's follow up question to me: You have stated many times that it is acceptable practice to go to neighbors homes to gather info. Asking questions about whether the perp is home, what he drives, so on and so forth. You didn't say that you were okay with what happened, but you did say that it was acceptable to be at a homeowners residence, ready for action at 11:30 PM. Remember, I "should" have a reasonable expectation to not have the police at my door at 11:30 PM unless I am some shit heel that needs to be cleaned from the gene pool. Any kind of information gathering that needed to be done before the arrest warrant was served, should have been done during daylight hours out of simple courtesy. Knock on doors during daytime. It makes identification of police officers through the peephole or window a little easier and would have likely prevented this kind of incident.

If I didn't say it before, I love you LEO guys and wish no ill will toward any of you. I truly respect you, what you do, and the dangerous situations you put yourselves into daily. Please accept that I am not attacking any of you personally, just talking to my friends on the internet, and I hope that we shall remain friends.

quote:

Originally posted by Deqlyn:
Below is the number of people ya'll convinced to change thier opinion in this thread.

Meh - he'll be dead before the end of the story anyway.

quote:

Originally posted by chongosuerte:
One of three things probably happened.

1. The police knowingly shot and killed an unarmed man, and his dog, which puts them squarely at fault.

2. The victim answered the door by pointing a gun and was shot by officers thinking they were facing an imminent deadly threat.

3. The victim answered the door and the officers thought his dog was going to attack them, so they shoot the dog. The victim is standing there holding a gun, and the officers (who just walked by his "Don't worry about the dog, beware of the owner and his gun" sign) perceived him as a continued threat and shoot.


I'm GUESSING options 1 and 2 aren't as likely as option 3. Option 3 sucks. I live my life in ways to avoid option 3s every day I work, because I realize they can really happen, and nobody wins, and they can USUALLY be avoided by using common sense, double checking information, and taking your time before taking action.

...

So if you don't want to DISCUSS anything, with the people who actually DO IT EVERYDAY, why are you here?

I like a good discussion and appreciate the views of knowledgeable people which why I read much more than I post.

You've said scenario 1 is really bad and scenario 3 is something you take steps to avoid. Are you ok with scenario 2? I'm not ok with #2. For the same reason that the other two don't really matter: They went to the WRONG house. If they had gone to the correct house, I'd be ok with scenario #2. But that isn't what happened, is it? Wrong house, the homeowner is dead and any DISCUSSION beyond that sounds like justification. It's not ok that the man is dead. He wouldn't have been shot and killed that night if the police hadn't gone to the WRONG house.

I'm not a LEO nor am I a pilot, but I'm just bright enough to recognize a colossal screw up when I see one. Since you brought up the airplane threads and pilots giving their professional opinions, I believe it was unanimous that the pilots that landed their planes on taxiways or at the wrong airport really screwed up. The discussion was about how it happens and what can be done to prevent it. I haven't seen that in this thread. I also believe it was said that landing a commercial airliner at the wrong airport was a career ender. What do you think will happen to the people involved in subject of this thread?