From this news report, I have serious questions about the lack of intervention here. The Mental Heath Dr, who is a female, and the medical provider for the assailant, who kidnaps and does outright horrible things to a girl for hours and the lack of action by the police here seems staggering. It's not Uvalde bad, but this looks bad. Now the local Sherriffs office is changing all of their statements now that the reporters are really digging into this.

Looks like the therapist was at the location begging for them to go in and they didn't for hours.

Police notified 14 hours before intervention

Immediatly when this broke, I saw the news and it was something like "domestic situation of guy with knife ends when officer shoots man in the head".

I chalked it up to a good shooting copper and now it looks like something very very different.

I can't see a situation where a therapist is at the scene (she is also the boss of the victem), and is telling the officer that their patient is inside and is a danger to themselves and their employee and the officers don't have cause to enter.

Thoughts?

"A danger to self, and/or others" requires intervention by a lot of professions. Most legally cannot do nothing. Now what can or has to be done...is different depending on local/state laws and the training of the individual.

Some of the worst crisis responses I've been a part of (I am not LE) have been exacerbated by well-intentioned counselors/psychologists. The absolute worst. Most cannot get it through their heads when to dive into people's minds vs. triage and apply psychological first aid instead, to stabilize in the crisis for short-term safety. Watching a suicide by cop because someone wanted to play problem solver who wasn't qualified, really sucks. It sucks even more for the individual who has to deal with the lifetime consequences of fixing the problems they created. Anyway....people suck.

Hate the game and rules, not the guys on the field doing all they can to run the ball.

They are not the problem, what you see are symptoms.

And it is going to get much worse, not better.

Guys they were hearing screams from inside and still didn't go in for about 2-3 more HOURS.
Read the article and timeline please.
I'm not here to flame anyone.

The Police owe no individual duty to a citizen. Supreme Court case deciding this issue is,
Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, similar circumstances.

quote:

Originally posted by Timdogg6:
Guys they were hearing screams from inside and still didn't go in for about 2-3 more HOURS.
Read the article and timeline please.
I'm not here to flame anyone.

I read it. I stand by my statement. I don't think your were flaming, but asking an sincere question.

quote:

Originally posted by Timdogg6:
Guys they were hearing screams from inside and still didn't go in for about 2-3 more HOURS.
Read the article and timeline please.
I'm not here to flame anyone.

PURE SPECULATION FOLLOWS AFTER READING A LONE ARTICLE LIKELY WITH AN AGENDA.

The news article states there were screams. Though there is no “video proof” notation of this like other events on the timeline. That is somewhat telling.

The article then quotes the officers saying “what screams?”

Implying the officers DID NOT HEAR the screams. The officers need to hear the screams for them to enter the residence due to exigency.

Again all I have is what is written in the article.

What could have and sounds like should have been done is that a search warrant should have been applied for the residence in regard to kidnapping/unlawful imprisonment.
The missing person report and elements that led to that, along with everyone’s statements, and the fact that the victim’s car was in the driveway should have been presented to a judge to try and obtain a search warrant.

Another option would to be to seek a warrant to ping the victim’s phone for its location.

Reading the article it is written as if the officers did not hear the screams.

Did they or did they not considering the article says both that it makes it hard to make a determination.

So, if I had a vested interest in the person screaming and the police choose not to act, can I in a legally step in? Set aside the fallout from the outcome, deal with it later. Like the border patrol officers who jumped in during the Uvalde incident. I'm not wanting to be a hero, but I don't think in my right mind and physically capable, that I could stand there knowing something evil is taking place while "good men at the ready" are do nothing.

I pray that I never have to be that guy.

-TVz

quote:

PURE SPECULATION FOLLOWS AFTER READING A LONE ARTICLE LIKELY WITH AN AGENDA.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Agree 1000 percent. Mental health doctor?? Any decent psychologist is not going to get involved in this mess. Likely some sort of counselor, but again we do not know as there was precious little information not to mention the name and credentials of some kind of professional on the scene.

If the patient is the boss of the victim and seeing her in therapy that is a SERIOUS ethical issue in and of itself.

quote:

Originally posted by TVzombie:
So, if I had a vested interest in the person screaming and the police choose not to act, can I in a legally step in? Set aside the fallout from the outcome, deal with it later. Like the border patrol officers who jumped in during the Uvalde incident. I'm not wanting to be a hero, but I don't think in my right mind and physically capable, that I could stand there knowing something evil is taking place while "good men at the ready" are do nothing.

I pray that I never have to be that guy.

-TVz

Legally no.

Are there times that some may feel so inclined they are willing to accept the legal consequences? I can tell you there are.

This article is poorly written from the get go and it is truly one sided so with this info alone it is very hard to say they should or should not have gone in sooner.

As one who deals with things of this nature pretty much on a daily basis there are many times I have to just walk away. Regardless of how many people show up to yell at me and tell me how I should be doing my job. If the threshold to enter is not there it is not there regardless of how much emotion or news/media coverage is thrown at it.

Are there many times where I think something is going on and what people are saying may have merit but the final question remains does exigency and or probable cause exist???
While many times my gut feeling is the same as the person wanting something done that simple gut feeling does not get me to that threshold a lot of times.

Have I gone to welfare checks where something does not seem right but had zero cause to be able to make entry only to come back days/weeks later because a family member or friend has decide to kick in a door and finds a loved one deceased. Unfortunately that has happened on a few occasions and they EAT at me inside every time I respond to a welfare check where I do not have enough to enter and have to walk away praying that I don’t have to return.

Do folks really think that these officers just wanted to do nothing?? Is it possible sure but how long does one have to stay on the call?
They clearly did not believe there was probable cause to enter but enough of that gut feeling to stay around and listen to the people that were there. They could have just left and gone onto another call, or did they stay because yes their gut was telling them something was not right so they stayed hoping that a reason to enter would arise?? To which it did apparently just not as fast as the callers would have liked.

Again, all the info we have is one crappy article.

If the cops had broken the door down without cause, and that sounded iffy, there would be hell to pay. As it is, they stuck around and worked through it legally which is what they needed to do. Here's a more specific timeline below.

https://bocapost.com/news/flor...head-by-pbso-deputy/

I need a LOT more information before I can say either way.

So finding a missing persons car in a driveway, and hearing a scream from inside the house, means waiting 2 hours…

I’m starting to think we should have traffic wardens, something not quite SWAT, and hire outside investigators with tax money/eliminate all non-sheriff law enforcement.

Having a bureaucratic mind at the head of a law enforcement agency seems to be a disaster.

Where are the journalists? A simple two paragraph story identifying the main characters and a brief description of the events is all that was needed.

Victim is alive and by the silence of the article I’m going to assume physically ok. The assailant is in custody. Even when the police win, they lose.

Starting with the headline, the article is obviously biased. The police were first notified at 1am, so they could not have ignored anything for 14 hours if it was over at 9:30am the same morning.


Here’s another article that gives more details including that the victim was raped and held at knife point. Also, police were notified at 1:00am by the victim’s mother that she was missing. Pinging the victim’s phone showed it to be in another county.

Link

So at 4:15 am deputies responded to the house and did not see or hear anything other than victim's car in driveway. Please note in the second article, the suspect had covered all the windows so no one could see in.

At 7:32 am deputies returned to the house and heard a scream. At this time the suspect dragged victim into a closet where the suspect hid with victim with a knife to her throat. At the same time, the victim's phone was pinging elsewhere. At this point, for deputies this is a potentially a classic barricaded suspect with a hostage. I say potentially because at this point there is no visuals on suspect or hostage or contact with suspect or hostage.

At 9:35 hours SWAT enters, searches the house, finds suspect and victim hiding in closet, and shoots suspect in the head (who was holding knife at victim's throat). 8 hours from the time the victim was reported missing. 2 hours from when deputies heard scream inside house, which is about the right amount of time for SWAT to arrive, plan, and deploy with a Search Warrant.

First linked article was extremely bias, jumping on the anti-police bandwagon. Second had a good time line and much more useful information.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: jsbcody,

quote:

Originally posted by jsbcody:
First linked article was extremely bias, jumping on the anti-police bandwagon.

Yep.

If you're "as pro-cop as the next guy", don't let a lone, poorly-written, biased, incomplete article sway you. There's always more to the story.

The first article told the the following

Police at property around 1am-2am, missing persons already filed, victims car on scene at home of person who has been charged with sexual battery priors and victim is presumed inside and text messages from victim state that she is in police custody and she is not. Persons on scene with police tell officer all this and that is verified and they leave.

I'm not jumping on any bandwagon. When the police start changing their story to say they arrived at 830 am, when really they were called there 12 hours ago and did arrive, that is when things get nasty.

I have worked in a law firm that has represented police officers for 40+ years on misconduct investigations, wrongful shoots, you name it. I trust you there is no anti-cop bias coming from me.

Just to clarify. Is the victim the social worker who went to the home of a convicted sex offender???

quote:

Originally posted by Timdogg6:
The first article told the the following

Police at property around 1am-2am, missing persons already filed, victims car on scene at home of person who has been charged with sexual battery priors and victim is presumed inside and text messages from victim state that she is in police custody and she is not. Persons on scene with police tell officer all this and that is verified and they leave.

I'm not jumping on any bandwagon. When the police start changing their story to say they arrived at 830 am, when really they were called there 12 hours ago and did arrive, that is when things get nasty.

I have worked in a law firm that has represented police officers for 40+ years on misconduct investigations, wrongful shoots, you name it. I trust you there is no anti-cop bias coming from me.

Reread the link you posted and find where it says police were on the scene at 1:00am or where police were notified of anything prior to 1:00am. There’s more, but I’m hoping those two points will be enough for you to see the article for the cleverly written biased article that it is. You may not be biased, but the article tricked you into believing facts that aren’t there.