SWATting turns deadly

[hollohas]

Yeah...because when the police arrive on scene of a reported homicide/hostage situation and a guy opens the door and appears to be reaching for something in/near his waistband, after the police have told him to keep his hands visible and in the air, the police have all the time in the world to ask for his ID and confirm whether or not he killed someone and was still holding hostages or is something else going on. Everyone knows that.

Bailey, in this case, the police were across the street taking cover behind vehicles. The distance most certainly affords a bit of time to confirm what he was doing with his hands before being shot. No, they won't be confirming ID's but they can certainly take 1 second to get a visual of a weapon before shooting in this particular case.

I know your experience leads your opinion on these things. And I don't question that. I don't have that experience. But I watched this video with my Dad who spent decades as a State LEO, SWAT marksman and LEO firearms instructor. He is a similar generation as you and he swears this generation of police are being trained to handle these sorts of situations differently than his was. In all his years, he was taught to confirm before taking deadly force. SEE a weapon before firing. Simple hand movement was not a reason to kill someone (unless of course a weapon was visible in the waistpants for example.)

People do strange things when contacted by police. Why they move their hands down when guns are pointed at them may seem dumb, but I suspect it's mostly involuntary. I'm sure you pulled someone over in your career for a simple moving violation who was shaking and/or crying when you approached the window. Why would their body respond that way for nothing more than a quick discussion with an officer? I'm sure if they could control it they would, but it happens. Now take that very simple police contact, but instead of someone who was driving 10 over, it's a person awakened from sleep, still a bit confused, who opens a door to spotlights shining in his face, bullhorns yelling commands and threats of being killed if he did something wrong? Is it unreasonable to believe that person may have an uncontrolled, stress induced physiological response where he does something he shouldn't? Absolutely! Most people wouldn't think clearly during something like this.

People deserve to be given the benefit of the doubt by police. I will always believe that. I was raised to believe that the police protect and serve, that they are willing to risk their lives to help people. That them going home at the end of the day wasn't the most important thing but instead making sure they treated people right, did their job right and helped the people they meet was.

Man in a truck on fire? Nope, going home tonight is not most important, going into a burning truck to help give that that guy a chance to live is. Confused man who may be a bad guy standing on his front porch moves his hands in a downwards motion? Nope. Going home tonight is not the most important, making sure you don't kill an innocent man is. This is not fairytale. It's the way many police officers live their lives and do their jobs. It's not unreasonable to hold them to that standard.

On that note, breaking news is multiple officers down in Littleton. Don't know the details. Let's pray for them.

[fitz19d]

I was really only thinking of geo location associated with whatever phone was used - area codes are practically useless given cell phones and how far some of us live from where we bought our first cell. Maybe it’s not automatic, but a geoloc even if just based on towers and not gps would be one more thing that could help departments avoid situations like this.

My intrepretation is they can bypass most means of knowing where the call really came from. Or in the other case, they can CSI GEO blah blah blah it, I imagine that takes calls to the telecoms and time which if you don't react promptly to these things and it is real...... bad outcome that way too.

[Bailey Guns]

I can respect a well thought out and reasoned response like yours, hollohas. Thank you for that. I'll offer up some differing perspective in bold.

Bailey, in this case, the police were across the street taking cover behind vehicles. The distance most certainly affords a bit of time to confirm what he was doing with his hands before being shot. No, they won't be confirming ID's but they can certainly take 1 second to get a visual of a weapon before shooting in this particular case.

It is entirely possible it wasn't themselves they were worried about when thinking the guy might be producing a gun or other weapon. It could be that the officer that fired saw something the others didn't that made him fire. It's entirely possible he was worried about the safety of others.

I know your experience leads your opinion on these things. And I don't question that. I don't have that experience. But I watched this video with my Dad who spent decades as a State LEO, SWAT marksman and LEO firearms instructor. He is a similar generation as you and he swears this generation of police are being trained to handle these sorts of situations differently than his was. In all his years, he was taught to confirm before taking deadly force. SEE a weapon before firing. Simple hand movement was not a reason to kill someone (unless of course a weapon was visible in the waistpants for example.)

Well, we must've come from differing times then. Because making "furtive" movements, especially towards the waistband area, especially in a high-risk type situation where a person is thought to be armed, is certainly a recipe for getting shot. And I was trained to do just that. On the other hand, I never shot anyone for doing that - though I can think of a few times when I probably should've - and fortunately for me and others on scene it worked out.

People do strange things when contacted by police. Why they move their hands down when guns are pointed at them may seem dumb, but I suspect it's mostly involuntary. I'm sure you pulled someone over in your career for a simple moving violation who was shaking and/or crying when you approached the window. Why would their body respond that way for nothing more than a quick discussion with an officer? I'm sure if they could control it they would, but it happens. Now take that very simple police contact, but instead of someone who was driving 10 over, it's a person awakened from sleep, still a bit confused, who opens a door to spotlights shining in his face, bullhorns yelling commands and threats of being killed if he did something wrong? Is it unreasonable to believe that person may have an uncontrolled, stress induced physiological response where he does something he shouldn't? Absolutely! Most people wouldn't think clearly during something like this.

I don't disagree with most of this. On the other hand, it's oftentimes a chance an officer can't take. It works both ways. Not to mention with the poor attitude many people have about the police they think that having guns pointed at them while police are screaming at them is a good time to argue and get their cell phones outta their pockets to post shit on Twitter or FB "cuz they knows they rights".

People deserve to be given the benefit of the doubt by police. I will always believe that. I was raised to believe that the police protect and serve, that they are willing to risk their lives to help people. That them going home at the end of the day wasn't the most important thing but instead making sure they treated people right, did their job right and helped the people they meet was.

Man in a truck on fire? Nope, going home tonight is not most important, going into a burning truck to help give that that guy a chance to live is. Confused man who may be a bad guy standing on his front porch moves his hands in a downwards motion? Nope. Going home tonight is not the most important, making sure you don't kill an innocent man is. This is not fairytale. It's the way many police officers live their lives and do their jobs. It's not unreasonable to hold them to that standard.

To a certain point, I agree with this, too. I've done stupid shit like go into a burning building to get some idiot out who thinks it's a great time to look for his cigarettes and car keys. And along the same lines, a dead cop or firefighter trying to be a hero doesn't do anyone any good, and can't continue to help others. So I disagree and will tell you that going home at the end of a shift is probably everyone's highest priority as well it should be. Now, taking a risk to help someone is always a calculated measure and most do it without thinking of the potentially deadly consequences. But anyone who intentionally places themselves in a deadly situation just because they want to "protect and serve" probably needs to rethink their priorities.

On that note, breaking news is multiple officers down in Littleton. Don't know the details. Let's pray for them.

[RblDiver]

Regarding the phone spoofing thing, per https://hotair.com/archives/2017/12/...s-transparent/ , spoofing is actually legal unless you have "intent to defraud, cause harm, or wrongly obtain anything of value." So, in this case it's illegal, but frequently it's permitted. Apparently, so is the requirement that cross-state calls must be allowed to have "blocked" numbers. Pretty stupid if you ask me. All numbers should be readily identifiable.

[Gman]

All numbers should be readily identifiable verifiable.

FIFY

[hollohas]

Bailey, you make great points that I can't argue with. I appreciate you responding to my comments because it creates a learning opportunity for everyone.

I especially agree with this..

"But anyone who intentionally places themselves in a deadly situation just because they want to "protect and serve" probably needs to rethink their priorities."

...and want to make sure it's clear I don't expect police officers to do that. A hero complex is not a healthy characteristic for a police officer.

I respect LEO's a great deal. I was raised to not even call them "cops" but to actually use the term "police" instead. I just ran into a few officers at the Littleton Hospital and had a quick chat. I didn't shed a tear when my baby boy was born this week, but my eyes were sure watery after a quick chat with those guys.

My respect for LE is the reason I hold them to high standards. Maybe fair, maybe not, but that's where it comes from.

[BushMasterBoy]

Good reason to make sure you have a home phone registered for reverse 911. That way the local agency can call to talk to anybody in the residence.

[Ridge]

Yeah...because when the police arrive on scene of a reported homicide/hostage situation and a guy opens the door and appears to be reaching for something in/near his waistband, after the police have told him to keep his hands visible and in the air, the police have all the time in the world to ask for his ID and confirm whether or not he killed someone and was still holding hostages or is something else going on. Everyone knows that.

Or maybe in future situations where it's not clear what's going on the police on scene could just jump online to their favorite forum where everyone's an expert and start a thread about what they should do to handle the situation? That might work.

Or how about this? If the cops suddenly show up at your house, with guns pointed at you, maybe it's a really good time to just listen closely and do EXACTLY what they tell you to do. I'm just throwin' that out there. But I know the drill...a bunch of people want to be all riled up about the Gestapo and trigger happy cops. But sometimes being stupid around the po-po has some pretty negative consequences.

Do what you're told to do when cops are pointing guns at you and live to sort it out later. Then you can be alive to be outraged about the Gestapo.

https://www.kansas.com/news/local/cr...192244734.html

You can see in the second video he's on his front porch, one of the officers puts a light on his face, and he raises his arm to cover his eyes. He is then shot.

[Bailey Guns]

Well your eyes are a lot better than mine. Between the poor quality video and the post on the porch I couldn't see what you claim with any amount of certainty.

[theGinsue]

The videos may, in the eyes of some here, seem damning of the officers reaction, but lets not Monday morning quarterback this event as we often want to do.

None of us were there and experienced what was considered at the moment to be a high risk/high emotion event.

Let's all instead, try to see if we can't form a solution that can render future SWAT'ing attempts ineffective without reducing the safety of the public during real world events.



ETA: Since some here have suggested that LEO's handle calls of this nature with more reserve, consider this possibility. I'd like to note that I find this unlikely, but possible.

What if, thanks to all of the nationwide condemnation of officers actions to this SWAT'ing event, the DCSO deputies involved in todays event went in with a lowered readiness alert? What if they considered that this might be another false flag event and they weren't as fully prepared for a real world shooter as they should have been?

Again, I'm sure this SWAT'ing event in no way effected todays DCSO manner of responding to the DV call which left 7 shot and one officer deceased. I'm simply pointing out that officers can't assume their requested presence to be for anything less than a real world possibly very hazardous situation. Officers tend to have fractions of seconds to scan the situation, identify potential risks based off of the information they have, plan their actions, decide what actions need to be taken and then to execute those actions. Mistakes will occur, sometimes with dire consequences and should not reflect poorly on the officers involved as they performed their best with the training and experience they have.

So again I ask that we don't Monday morning quarterback this event and let the investigation and healing take place.