Cont: The behaviour of US police officers - part 2

[Bob001]

....
"Once on scene, officers mistakenly approached" the wrong address and knocked on the door. The statement from the state public safety authority said the officers identified themselves as police, but no one answered."
....

This doesn't sound like it was intended to be a stealth operation. If the cops wanted the residents to know that cops were "knocking" (likely pounding) on their door, I'm surprised they didn't hit their sirens and light bars as they rolled up.

 

[Jim_MDP]

This doesn't sound like it was intended to be a stealth operation. If the cops wanted the residents to know that cops were "knocking" (likely pounding) on their door, I'm surprised they didn't hit their sirens and light bars as they rolled up.

Likely lights, can't say about sirens without details of the call (weapons on scene, history at the residence, etc.)
If they say cams have them both knock and announce, I'm going by that for now. Too easy to show them lying.
But, bigger cock-ups have happened when the blue wall pops up after a shooting. [emoji35]

 

[bruto]

Whoa, whoa... we're heading into the weeds.

I didn't mean to say the guy was aggressive or whatever and deserved what happened (that was snarkily poor phrasing on my part).
Just a response to your comment on brandishing and an example of how behavior can affect context.
And I haven't seen the vid nor read any articles so I'll have to hold off deciding what happened. Though the Mrs. getting shots off... and surviving, is a new wrinkle. Surprised it didn't turn into a standoff. [emoji15]
But we agree... 'shoot first, ask questions later' is crap policy. This outcome is far too common here.

I understand the above, but I am just making the case that brandishing would not make sense in this case as far as we know the evidence so far. There's some ambiguity, as always, in the law's definition of brandishing, but I think in general, to be guilty of it, one must be the initiator of an action. If you make a threat with a gun, you're in the wrong. But in a gun-happy state like New Mexico, if you answer a threat with a gun, I doubt you would be. If the man came to the door with gun at the ready, to confront kids on the lawn, yes, he'd have been guilty of it. But if he came to the door with gun (ready or not) to answer to an unknown knock on the door, not. If carrying a gun in your house when investigating an unknown incident is brandishing, then the presumed "castle doctrine" and the right of self defense supposedly enshrined in New Mexico law is nullified. The whole point of the castle doctrine is to make brandishing a right in certain circumstances.

Of course it remains to be seen, and it wouldn't be the first time the cops presume that their special status trumps the law.

It's a little unclear from the statement so far whether gunfire was exchanged with the wife, or to what extent, and my guess is that by this time the cops knew they'd really blown it, and yelled something with sufficiently intelligible threat. I'm entirely guessing here, but the wife also, presumably, knew that there was shooting going on, having just seen her husband shot dead, and may have been more cautious, whereas I suspect that it will be found the cops never gave their initial victim a chance at all, and shot him on sight.

We are indeed in the woods here, but it can be an interesting place to wander about while waiting for the real news as long as we remember not to draw any guns. I'm guessing here, of course, but my guess from the clip we've seen and the nearly tearful recounting done there, that the cockup will be greater and more embarrassing than we've seen so far.

 

[arayder]

Is this rhetorical?

Our gun laws are logically unworkable. "Everyone can carry a gun openly" and "if you are the least bit scared because you see a gun you can shoot to defend yourself" aren't a great combo.

I mean, you can not carry a gun and avoid being legally executed, but who knows if those other people carrying guns in public are going to start shooting random people because they think tap water is making children gay so who knows.

In many, maybe most, jurisdictions you can have a loaded gun in your house for home protection so, IMHO, New Mexico's open carry law doesn't come into play. This could have happened almost anywhere in the US.

The police say they IDed themselves but Dotson must not have heard them or understood. Neither did his wife who came to the door after he was shot and started firing rounds at the police. It seems that as soon as she realized they were cops she dropped her gun.

A few thoughts come to mind:

These cops were responding to a domestic violence report and got the wrong house. Since domestic violence calls are dangerous as hell for the cops they had to be on edge when they saw a guy with a gun at the door.

Since these cops have body cameras you have to figure it can be determined whether the cops really announced themselves. It's not clear if they backed away because dispatch set them straight on the correct address.

If the cops did ID themselves then this has to be another case of the home owner not understanding or hearing the cops. This seems to happen often. I think the cops need to think about how this goes wrong so often. Think about it. The cops are banging on the door in the middle of the night. The occupants are shouting about getting the gun or guns out of the drawers or safes. The kids are screaming. The dog is barking . . . .and over all this the home owner is expected to hear and understand the shouts "This is the police"?

And since the cops went to the wrong house the home owners had good reason to assume this was a home invasion.

Having said all this, and not to blame the victim, the home owner made a mistake in presenting himself as an easy target at the front door. SOP is to get behind good cover in the house and wait for the home invaders (that's what Dotson must have thought they were) to present themselves as targets. Even then the home owner has to sure he knows who he's shooting at. It's not unusual for drunken or high people to wander into the wrong house shouting at the top of their lungs about something. "Bobby Joe this ain't yo house. It's me Robert, Bobby Joe! You in the wrong house, Bobby Joe!"

If Dotson had taken cover in the house and waited there would have been a good chance everyone involved would have been able to sort out the cop's mistake.

My two cents.

 

[quadraginta]

In many, maybe most, jurisdictions you can have a loaded gun in your house for home protection so, IMHO, New Mexico's open carry law doesn't come into play. This could have happened almost anywhere in the US.

The police say they IDed themselves but Dotson must not have heard them or understood. Neither did his wife who came to the door after he was shot and started firing rounds at the police. It seems that as soon as she realized they were cops she dropped her gun.

A few thoughts come to mind:

These cops were responding to a domestic violence report and got the wrong house. Since domestic violence calls are dangerous as hell for the cops they had to be on edge when they saw a guy with a gun at the door.

Since these cops have body cameras you have to figure it can be determined whether the cops really announced themselves. It's not clear if they backed away because dispatch set them straight on the correct address.

If the cops did ID themselves then this has to be another case of the home owner not understanding or hearing the cops. This seems to happen often. I think the cops need to think about how this goes wrong so often. Think about it. The cops are banging on the door in the middle of the night. The occupants are shouting about getting the gun or guns out of the drawers or safes. The kids are screaming. The dog is barking . . . .and over all this the home owner is expected to hear and understand the shouts "This is the police"?

And since the cops went to the wrong house the home owners had good reason to assume this was a home invasion.

Having said all this, and not to blame the victim, the home owner made a mistake in presenting himself as an easy target at the front door. SOP is to get behind good cover in the house and wait for the home invaders (that's what Dotson must have thought they were) to present themselves as targets. Even then the home owner has to sure he knows who he's shooting at. It's not unusual for drunken or high people to wander into the wrong house shouting at the top of their lungs about something. "Bobby Joe this ain't yo house. It's me Robert, Bobby Joe! You in the wrong house, Bobby Joe!"

If Dotson had taken cover in the house and waited there would have been a good chance everyone involved would have been able to sort out the cop's mistake.

My two cents.

It's easy to think up scenarios where the bad stuff doesn't happen, but that is beside the point.

The victim was in his own house, answering his own door, doing nothing illegal. The cops killed him.

 

[Bob001]

.....
If Dotson had taken cover in the house and waited there would have been a good chance everyone involved would have been able to sort out the cop's mistake.
....

That might be too much to expect, but the guy could have shouted through the closed door "Who's there?" If he really thought he was confronting home invaders it didn't make much sense to open the door.

 

[novaphile]

That might be too much to expect, but the guy could have shouted through the closed door "Who's there?" If he really thought he was confronting home invaders it didn't make much sense to open the door.

I guess it makes sense for someone who owns guns because it's part of some kind of fantasy that it makes them more male or suchlike.

I'm reminded of Larry Niven's 'why wizards don't wear swords' theme, i.e. If a wizard wears a sword it either means: (a) "I'm a really crap wizard, and therefore need a sword to defend myself." or (b) "I have a sexual disfunction, and have to wear a sword all the time to bolster my failing erection."

Both of which are things that wizards really shouldn't be advertising. (Note in his 'magic goes away' universe, the sword doesn't work for (b) unless you wear it all the time.)

 

[bruto]

That might be too much to expect, but the guy could have shouted through the closed door "Who's there?" If he really thought he was confronting home invaders it didn't make much sense to open the door.

It remains to be clarified, but it appears the cops were no longer at the door when he opened it. He appears to have heard attempts to enter, (which the cops say were well announced, but we don't know for sure), and when they failed to get a response they backed off, and were at that moment trying to find out what they should have known from the start -that is, if they had the wrong house. At that point, it seems the owner opened the door, holding his gun, and they immediately shot him. We don't know yet if he even had the chance to call out "who's there?"

 

[novaphile]

Knock! Knock!
Who's there?
Police.
Police who?
BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!

Nevah question mah autoritay.

 

[Checkmite]

Cop in an SUV hits a child at an intersection, gives him a Band-Aid and then drives off, never filing a report or otherwise saying a word. Then denies the incident ever happened when confronted.

 

[gnome]

To me there's an even bigger problem with the "rotten apples" model than just the implication that they're in the minority. We do need to remove "rotten apples" but the entire idea is flawed--that these are "bad people" that happened to slip through the cracks or went rogue.

It pays no heed to the institutional flaws that lead to bad policing such as negligent screening or poor training or harmful culture or asking them to wear too many hats.

 

[bluesjnr]

To me there's an even bigger problem with the "rotten apples" model than just the implication that they're in the minority. We do need to remove "rotten apples" but the entire idea is flawed--that these are "bad people" that happened to slip through the cracks or went rogue.

It pays no heed to the institutional flaws that lead to bad policing such as negligent screening or poor training or harmful culture or asking them to wear too many hats.

Every single LEO, past or present, is guilty of bad appleism to some degree. I can guarantee you that at the every least they have "looked the other way" or conveniently not stopped a colleague escalating a situation needlessly.

Show me a cop who insists they have never, "bad appled", at any level and I'll show you a liar.

Mind you, having said that, show me a liar and I'll show you a cop.

 

[Darat]

To me there's an even bigger problem with the "rotten apples" model than just the implication that they're in the minority. We do need to remove "rotten apples" but the entire idea is flawed--that these are "bad people" that happened to slip through the cracks or went rogue.

It pays no heed to the institutional flaws that lead to bad policing such as negligent screening or poor training or harmful culture or asking them to wear too many hats.

As all the many reports and investigations of police forces keep revealing any good apples are being placed into an already spoiled barrel.

 

[jimbob]

To me there's an even bigger problem with the "rotten apples" model than just the implication that they're in the minority. We do need to remove "rotten apples" but the entire idea is flawed--that these are "bad people" that happened to slip through the cracks or went rogue.

It pays no heed to the institutional flaws that lead to bad policing such as negligent screening or poor training or harmful culture or asking them to wear too many hats.

I think the metaphor is actually very accurate because they spoil the wood of the barrel and mean that even if all the bad apples had been removed, the spores that got into the barrel will make the new apples rot.

It actually describes the issue very well, it's just that it's usually not thought about in that way.


ETA semi-ninja'd by Darat

 

[shemp]

Kansas man’s lawsuit says he was chased, tased for speeding

KANSAS CITY, Kan. (AP) — An 80-year-old Kansas man was pursued by police and tased by a deputy — all for driving 3 mph (5 kph) over the speed limit, a federal lawsuit claims.

John J. Sigg sued Monday, naming Allen County Sheriff Bryan J. Murphy and former Deputy Joseph Stotler. Sigg’s lawsuit seeks $250,000 in actual damages and an equal amount in punitive damages.

On April 16, 2021, Sigg was clocked by an Iola, Kansas, officer going 38 mph (61 kph) in a 35 mph (56 kph) speed zone. A pursuit began. The lawsuit said Sigg was unaware police were following him even though law enforcement vehicles from other departments joined the pursuit in an area that is about 100 miles (161 kilometers) southwest of Kansas City, Missouri.

Sigg drove to a car lot operated by his family. When he got out of his car, officers surrounded him and two officers from nearby Chanute, Kansas, drew their guns, the lawsuit said.

“Sigg looked at them quizzically and raised his hands,” the lawsuit stated. That’s when Stotler demanded that Sigg get on the ground and without warning, used the Taser on him, even though the maker of the stun gun had warned against using it on the elderly, the lawsuit stated.

 

[bignickel]

Remember when the Taser came out, and the powers that be claimed that it was an alternative to shooting someone with an actual gun?

So I assume that one of officers was going to shoot him with their service weapon, and luckily decided to use a Taser instead. Wow, was that old man fortunate!

 

[Trebuchet]

Remember when the Taser came out, and the powers that be claimed that it was an alternative to shooting someone with an actual gun?

So I assume that one of officers was going to shoot him with their service weapon, and luckily decided to use a Taser instead. Wow, was that old man fortunate!

I suspect he's white.

 

[erlando]

Kansas man’s lawsuit says he was chased, tased for speeding

The scope of his crime clearly made the officers fear for their lives. He should count himself lucky that they showed such restraint.

 

[gnome]

Remember when the Taser came out, and the powers that be claimed that it was an alternative to shooting someone with an actual gun?

So I assume that one of officers was going to shoot him with their service weapon, and luckily decided to use a Taser instead. Wow, was that old man fortunate!

Must have been going for their gun and grabbed the taser by mistake.

 

[shemp]

Racist text messaging investigation rocks Northern California police department

ALAMEDA, Calif. — More than a dozen police officers are under investigation in a racist text messaging probe that has rocked the Northern California city of Antioch, an investigative report released Thursday show.

A judge released the investigative report compiled by the Contra Costa County District Attorney’s Office that included the partly redacted messages after a joint FBI and local investigation into the city’s police department.

The messages, which were sent in 2020 and 2021, detail officers' allegedly using racial epithets and homophobic slurs, sharing racist images and casually discussing the use of “less lethal” weapons on people, including the city's mayor, who is Black.

The majority of the roughly 114,000 residents of Antioch, about 45 miles northeast of San Francisco, are minorities.

The messages could have far-reaching implications for criminal cases linked to the officers. Authorities provided the messages last week to defense lawyers for four men charged with murder and other crimes after two of the accused were named in the messages.

Also this:

In a message included in the investigative report and dated April 29, 2020, Officer Morteza Amiri told an officer from a nearby department that because his agency does not record interviews on video, "I sometimes just say people gave me a full confession when they didn't."

"Gets filed easier," Amiri said, according to the report.

Amiri did not respond to a request for comment Thursday night.

There's also messages calling the city's Black mayor the n-word and threatening harm to him:

Other messages show officers allegedly discussing using a less lethal weapon on suspects and others, including Mayor Lamar Thorpe.

On June 8, 2020, Officer John Ramirez allegedly texted a group of 22 officers and said: "I’ll buy someone a prime rib dinner at House of prim rib to 40 that [expletive] during the protest today."

"This is a reference to the potential use of a .40mm less lethal launcher being utilized on current Antioch Mayor Lamar Thorpe," wrote Senior Inspector Larry Wallace of the district attorney's office, the author of the investigative report that included the messages.

Just more of the "We're cops, we can get away with anything" mentality.