Officers kill wrong man in raid at wrong house

[Endus]

It states in the article he had a gun. It also states that the officers stated he pointed at them. It also states it was 'suggested' he was shot through the door not that he was actually shot through the door.
Until we get the ME report and more information, I am not going on what a news agency states. Other people might trust the MSM 100%, but I do not. They have their own agenda to fill.

So you're going to literally make up your own nonsense instead? Because that's what you're doing.

If the officers want to argue that he threatened them with the weapon, they need to prove that they identified themselves properly or that he fired first. Because, again, you have the right to be armed in the USA, and in Mississippi, castle doctrine says you're perfectly entitled to shoot people who threaten you on your property. All the evidence cited in the article goes against this claim, other than the officer's testimony, which doesn't line up with the physical evidence and witness testimony.

That the officers killed the guy isn't in question, and isn't disputed. If the officer wants to argue that the killing was justified, they need to prove it. The onus for that defense is on them, and presumption of innocence does not apply there; they've already admitted they're guilty of the homicide, they're claiming they have a positive defense of that action.

[McFuu]

Why would anyone raid a house for domestic violence?

I think the issuing judge should be responsible for all events that transpire during a raid. They would be a lot more careful before they sign off on ridiculous raids, even if they had the right house, domestic violence? Really? Kick in a door in the middle of the night when you can just knock during the day?

[Torrasque]

It states in the article that he had a gun but: It also states that the statements made by the officers is inconsistent with statements made by witnesses: And that they actually have a vested self interest in making the claims they've made: And it states, specifically, that: Which has a far different meaning than merely "suggesting" that he was shot through the door.

Sounds like a classic case of shoot, make up whatever you want later... another unfortunate thing that is common with US police.

[Allybeboba]

So you're going to literally make up your own nonsense instead? Because that's what you're doing.

If the officers want to argue that he threatened them with the weapon, they need to prove that they identified themselves properly or that he fired first. Because, again, you have the right to be armed in the USA, and in Mississippi, castle doctrine says you're perfectly entitled to shoot people who threaten you on your property. All the evidence cited in the article goes against this claim, other than the officer's testimony, which doesn't line up with the physical evidence and witness testimony.

That the officers killed the guy isn't in question, and isn't disputed. If the officer wants to argue that the killing was justified, they need to prove it. The onus for that defense is on them, and presumption of innocence does not apply there; they've already admitted they're guilty of the homicide, they're claiming they have a positive defense of that action.

I never stated the didn't kill the person. Only that the MSM didn't present all the evidence and likely we will never ever hear the outcome in the end. The MSM never tells the entire story. They only tell the narrative they want to push and people lap it.
Hours later the family already had a lawyer representing them and speaking to media.

[Endus]

The US police -are- the criminal element.

Well, most cops are decent cops. Let's not overreact.

But cops that cross the line need to;

A> be punished to the fullest extent of the law, with the harshest sentencing applied, and
B> get no support or defense from their colleagues. Any cop that defends a colleague who committed a criminal act, or fails to report said criminal action to IA, is not a good cop, and in the latter case, needs to be charged as well as an accessory.

[Allybeboba]

Well, most cops are decent cops. Let's not overreact.

But cops that cross the line need to;

A> be punished to the fullest extent of the law, with the harshest sentencing applied, and
B> get no support or defense from their colleagues. Any cop that defends a colleague who committed a criminal act, or fails to report said criminal action to IA, is not a good cop, and in the latter case, needs to be charged as well as an accessory.

In this you are correct. The officers that support them need to be treated as criminals as well.

Unfortunately, people treat them guilty until proven innocent just because of a couple misleading news articles.

[Endus]

I never stated the didn't kill the person. Only that the MSM didn't present all the evidence and likely we will never ever hear the outcome in the end. The MSM never tells the entire story. They only tell the narrative they want to push.
Hours later the family already had a lawyer representing them and speaking to media.

This isn't even an argument. It's just a random rant against the "MSM" for no reason whatsoever. Your claims directly contradict what facts we do know.

Nobody claimed this was totally settled and everything was on the table. But you don't get to literally make up bullshit and act like you need to be given as much credence as the journalists reporting on the facts.

[BeakerPD]

I never stated the didn't kill the person. Only that the MSM didn't present all the evidence and likely we will never ever hear the outcome in the end. The MSM never tells the entire story. They only tell the narrative they want to push and people lap it.
Hours later the family already had a lawyer representing them and speaking to media.

I feel it is important to let you know now. As a neutral third party to your exchanges with others on this thread, you are the one coming off looking ignorant. You may want to stop now.

[Allybeboba]

I feel it is important to let you know now. As a neutral third party to your exchanges with others on this thread, you are the one coming off looking ignorant. You may want to stop now.

Yep, that's me.

[Tinykong]

Reasonable people don't answer the door with the barrel of a gun.

Are we ready for a nationwide mandate on 100% audio and video recording of all police yet?

[tumppu]

If a police officer in Finland needs to fire his or her gun they will most likely not be in the line of work again and will be doing a more paper related job. Even if the shooting was justified and necessary.

Not quite true. Every time a weapon is used (and that does indeed include drawing it, even if it's mace), there's an investigation as to why it happened and based on that, appropriate action is taken. It's rare for cops to draw or discharge their weapons and then get ruled to have acted inappropriately, so I can only conclude the rules are hammered into cops' heads pretty well.

The "getting a desk job" is actually more of a psychological thing, giving the cop time to handle the stress and/or guilt of having to resort to using their weapon on someone. Once they pass an evalution, they can get back to normal street work though.

Other than that, I agree with your post.

[Korlok]

It states in the article he had a gun. It also states that the officers stated he pointed at them. It also states it was 'suggested' he was shot through the door not that he was actually shot through the door.
Until we get the ME report and more information, I am not going on what a news agency states. Other people might trust the MSM 100%, but I do not. They have their own agenda to fill.

And of course, you surely don't. Right?

[tumppu]

Hours later the family already had a lawyer representing them and speaking to media.

If a member of your family got gunned down by cops while answering the door, you WOULDN'T?

Anything I've read about this so far screams of such massive amounts of incompetence by the cops, that suing them for just manslaughter would be letting them off easy.

[Deleted]

Not quite true. Every time a weapon is used (and that does indeed include drawing it, even if it's mace), there's an investigation as to why it happened and based on that, appropriate action is taken. It's rare for cops to draw or discharge their weapons and then get ruled to have acted inappropriately, so I can only conclude the rules are hammered into cops' heads pretty well.

The "getting a desk job" is actually more of a psychological thing, giving the cop time to handle the stress and/or guilt of having to resort to using their weapon on someone. Once they pass an evalution, they can get back to normal street work though.

Other than that, I agree with your post.

I was doing a quick explanation without doing fine details if you did not notice...

Post was already a wall of text.

[Machismo]

I feel it is important to let you know now. As a neutral third party to your exchanges with others on this thread, you are the one coming off looking ignorant. You may want to stop now.

He's actually proud of his ignorance.

[Rusque]

I mean, I don't support domestic violence . . . but I'm not sure it should be punishable by death without some sort of investigation. Which is why the police were there.

Also not punishable by death is owning a gun, y'know the whole 2nd amendment thing that a bunch of people seem to love.

Also impressive is how the police could see a man with a gun through a closed door.

I'm not particularly shocked that they went to the wrong house, nor am I surprised to hear they tried to make up a story to not sound like incompetent murderous assholes.

What I am surprised by is how there's never any thought given to when it's appropriate to use lethal force. At no point during their raid did they need to use lethal force and it seems like no attempt was made to resolve the problem without it. Is everything punishable by death?

[tumppu]

I was doing a quick explanation without doing fine details if you did not notice...

Post was already a wall of text.

Yeah, no sweat, just felt like clarifying that part.

[Deleted]

Another example why people repeating the mantra "if you don't break the law, you'll be fine" are wrong. No. You might not be fine.

[kasuke06]

Well, most cops are decent cops. Let's not overreact.

But cops that cross the line need to;

A> be punished to the fullest extent of the law, with the harshest sentencing applied, and
B> get no support or defense from their colleagues. Any cop that defends a colleague who committed a criminal act, or fails to report said criminal action to IA, is not a good cop, and in the latter case, needs to be charged as well as an accessory.

One of the very few situations I'll agree with you on. Cops really need an image fixing, but that also has to be a two way thing. Since it's hard to be the good cop when every day has people blasting "fuck tha police" and having to worry double for your own and your family's safety over just doing your job and trying to protect people(How many times have people rioted over a dead criminal's childhood photo when they were in their 20's/30's now? Remember all the apologies the rioters and inciters gave when it was proven by evidence that the criminal was the aggressor, and tried to use lethal force first?)

We have whole movements dedicated to brainwashing people that the police are out to get them 24/7. I can recall on one hand the amount of bullies with a badge I've dealt with. And guess what? at least one of them was fired under a mountain of complaints.

It's like being around bikers. Yeah, there's the meth-dealing, gunfights in public, criminal types. but mostly? It's just people who really like motorcycles and leather. Also, bikers are surprisingly good with kids. then again, like a third of them look like post-apocalypse santa claus so maybe that's a bit less surprising. In much the same way as cops, if you treat them like people, they're pretty damn friendly.

[Allybeboba]

One of the very few situations I'll agree with you on. Cops really need an image fixing, but that also has to be a two way thing. Since it's hard to be the good cop when every day has people blasting "fuck tha police" and having to worry double for your own and your family's safety over just doing your job and trying to protect people(How many times have people rioted over a dead criminal's childhood photo when they were in their 20's/30's now? Remember all the apologies the rioters and inciters gave when it was proven by evidence that the criminal was the aggressor, and tried to use lethal force first?)

We have whole movements dedicated to brainwashing people that the police are out to get them 24/7. I can recall on one hand the amount of bullies with a badge I've dealt with. And guess what? at least one of them was fired under a mountain of complaints.

It's like being around bikers. Yeah, there's the meth-dealing, gunfights in public, criminal types. but mostly? It's just people who really like motorcycles and leather. Also, bikers are surprisingly good with kids. then again, like a third of them look like post-apocalypse santa claus so maybe that's a bit less surprising. In much the same way as cops, if you treat them like people, they're pretty damn friendly.

Brainwashing works best on the weak minded that can't think for themselves.