Ooops! We KILLED the wrong guy.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Another innocent person killed, not too far from where I live. I am sure in this case that there are those who want to say that this guy just got what was coming to him for responding the wrong way to a perceived threat.

Of course, I would disagree with that opinion. What do you guys think asbout this? Would you want to see the police officers involved to be prosecuted for 2nd degree murder?


http://news.yahoo.com/video/deputies...163819466.html

[scotty]

Don't know why they would be prosecuted. They knocked on the door. The man opened the door, pointed a gun at the police, they shot him.

Now remember, they said that deputys 'knocked on the door'. At this point they do not have to 'identify' themselves. Only if they perform a 'forced entry' do they have to identify themselves.

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by scotty

Don't know why they would be prosecuted. They knocked on the door. The man opened the door, pointed a gun at the police, they shot him.

Now remember, they said that deputys 'knocked on the door'. At this point they do not have to 'identify' themselves. Only if they perform a 'forced entry' do they have to identify themselves.

Well it isn't called the "knock and announce" rule for nothing.

There are times when police are not required to announce, but I cannot think of any situation where you wouldn't announce and still knock. If you don't need to announce you don't need to knock. The one exception would be if they were going door to door asking for help in locating the subject of their investigation.

There are a lot of unanswered questions in that story. I have answered the door with a pistol in my hand when someone was beating on my door at 2 am, and yelling. I guess I am lucky it wasn't a cop I was protecting myself from.

There was an indication in the story as to the time of day being the reason he answered with a gun.

I am not saying the sheriff was at fault without more facts but it sounds like they may have been too quick on the trigger. They had time to draw their wepeon and fire but no time to say, "Police! Drop it!"?

[canam]

He got what he had coming !

[acerrak]

police are in the wrong. they need to be sued, they messed up. they didnt announce, they got the wrong address.

Constitution allows defense of your home. The man was in his right todo so cause they did not announce themselves.

Failure to announce themselves automatically makes it their fault. The police did what they was trained todo, shoot first ask later. They will be given administative leave. Then will be placed on active duty and will be required to under Go training.

The county is going to get sued, it may or may not be settled out of court but there is lawyers that will jump all over this.

It will be a wrongfull death suit.

If i was the cop i probably would have panic'd and fired to, after all we are going after a dangerous man.

The fault lies with the wrong intel, the wrong address.. that is just unacceptable. period. its not even debatable. you gather your intel before you make a move.

if this was the military and they did the same thing, The leading officer on down would have been fired and a court martial pending. I think the same type of standards needs to be held for law enforcment.

[scotty]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

Well it isn't called the "knock and announce" rule for nothing.

There are times when police are not required to announce, but I cannot think of any situation where you wouldn't announce and still knock. If you don't need to announce you don't need to knock. The one exception would be if they were going door to door asking for help in locating the subject of their investigation.

There are a lot of unanswered questions in that story. I have answered the door with a pistol in my hand when someone was beating on my door at 2 am, and yelling. I guess I am lucky it wasn't a cop I was protecting myself from.

There was an indication in the story as to the time of day being the reason he answered with a gun.

I am not saying the sheriff was at fault without more facts but it sounds like they may have been too quick on the trigger. They had time to draw their wepeon and fire but no time to say, "Police! Drop it!"?

Rule, yes. Is it law? I believe it is law that when they "knock down" the door they have to announce. I could be wrong. But if they are simply 'knocking' on the door, I don't think they are required to announce.

Now, setting that question aside. When you answered the door at 2am with a gun, did you look out first? See who it was? Or just open the door with a gun? If I get a banging at the door at 2am, yes I will go to the door with a gun. But I will look out first as an act of common sense. How do I know if I am about to open the door to one thug or six thugs, are they armed? These are things I would like to know before I just open the door.

With that being said, you have to answer the question. Did he look out first? The door has a peep hole. There is a window next to the door. So either one of two things happened, he looked out, saw it was the police and intentionally opened the door and point a gun at them....or.... he opened the door with a gun in his hand without looking first.

If the first is true, then he had a death wish for what ever the reason may be. Maybe he was guilty of something and determined to go out in a blaze of glory.

If the second is true, then he died because he was stupid.

It is a tragedy either way, but lack of common sense kills people everyday, this is just another example.

I would also add that if they believed there was a murderer behind the door, Im sure they already had their weapons drawn.

[acerrak]

Originally Posted by scotty

Rule, yes. Is it law? I believe it is law that when they "knock down" the door they have to announce. I could be wrong. But if they are simply 'knocking' on the door, I don't think they are required to announce.

Now, setting that question aside. When you answered the door at 2am with a gun, did you look out first? See who it was? Or just open the door with a gun? If I get a banging at the door at 2am, yes I will go to the door with a gun. But I will look out first as an act of common sense. How do I know if I am about to open the door to one thug or six thugs, are they armed? These are things I would like to know before I just open the door.

With that being said, you have to answer the question. Did he look out first? The door has a peep hole. There is a window next to the door. So either one of two things happened, he looked out, saw it was the police and intentionally opened the door and point a gun at them....or.... he opened the door with a gun in his hand without looking first.

If the first is true, then he had a death wish for what ever the reason may be. Maybe he was guilty of something and determined to go out in a blaze of glory.

If the second is true, then he died because he was stupid.

It is a tragedy either way, but lack of common sense kills people everyday, this is just another example.

look at what the law says

Knock Down for Knock and Announce


The knock and announce rule required police to knock first, announce themselves, and wait a reasonable time for someone to answer the door.

in certain situations this is waved,

But for a law suit, one only has to proove neglegence on the police's part.

The police in san diego killed a mentally retarded man they was sued, in a wrongfull death case, and was forced to pay out.

It doesnt bring the person back but its better than nothing

[scotty]

Originally Posted by acerrak

look at what the law says

Knock Down for Knock and Announce


The knock and announce rule required police to knock first, announce themselves, and wait a reasonable time for someone to answer the door.

in certain situations this is waved,

But for a law suit, one only has to proove neglegence on the police's part.

The police in san diego killed a mentally retarded man they was sued, in a wrongfull death case, and was forced to pay out.

It doesnt bring the person back but its better than nothing

Everything I am reading on the Knock and Announce law pertains to search and seizure. I'm having a problem finding anything that relates it to arrest warrants. I know we see it all the time where officers are announcing themselves at the same time the battering ram is going through the door.

Here is one assessment I found.

But then came Hudson. In that case, the Court correctly observed that the knock-and-announce rule has historically protected such interests as:
1. The physical safety of a home's occupants because an unannounced entry by the police may provoke violence from a surprised resident;
2. Property interest because the owner of a home would probably open his front door voluntarily if the police first announced their presence rather than allowing the police to break it down; and
3. The privacy and dignity of a home that is offended if the police enter it unexpectedly and forcefully.

So the knock and announce is to happen prior to entering the home. Had they knocked, broke down the door and then were confronted by the man with a gun, I would agree they were in the wrong. But it never even made it that far, and I believe thats where the line will be drawn. This man came to the door, opened it, and pointed a gun at them.

Once again, stupity kills.

[acerrak]

Originally Posted by scotty

Everything I am reading on the Knock and Announce law pertains to search and seizure. I'm having a problem finding anything that relates it to arrest warrants. I know we see it all the time where officers are announcing themselves at the same time the battering ram is going through the door.

Here is one assessment I found.

But then came Hudson. In that case, the Court correctly observed that the knock-and-announce rule has historically protected such interests as:
1. The physical safety of a home's occupants because an unannounced entry by the police may provoke violence from a surprised resident;
2. Property interest because the owner of a home would probably open his front door voluntarily if the police first announced their presence rather than allowing the police to break it down; and
3. The privacy and dignity of a home that is offended if the police enter it unexpectedly and forcefully.

So the knock and announce is to happen prior to entering the home. Had they knocked, broke down the door and then were confronted by the man with a gun, I would agree they were in the wrong. But it never even made it that far, and I believe thats where the line will be drawn. This man came to the door, opened it, and pointed a gun at them.

Once again, stupity kills.

if you continue reading the can be sued over it,

the question is if the annouced would the guy be alive.
if they got the right address would the guy be alive

the answer to both can be a yes, this is neglegence. there gonna get sued and lose.

the knock and annouce rule doesnt even have to make it to court, the neglegence is the wrong address.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

Another innocent person killed, not too far from where I live. I am sure in this case that there are those who want to say that this guy just got what was coming to him for responding the wrong way to a perceived threat.

Of course, I would disagree with that opinion. What do you guys think asbout this? Would you want to see the police officers involved to be prosecuted for 2nd degree murder?


http://news.yahoo.com/video/deputies...163819466.html

It's iffy. They should have announced themselves, but if he was pointing a weapon, I can understand the response. The fact that they were at the wrong house is incidental to the story. I'm having trouble buying the idea that he perceived the officers as a threat or didn't know that they were law enforcement. Were they not in uniform?

I would also like to know whether or not they told him to drop his weapon before they fired.