Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton
To me if I were the home owner it may very well be.mojo84 wrote:Also, shooting and killing the dog is not worse than shooting an innocent homeowner and fellow cop. Humans>animals
Just because something can be explained doesn't mean it's justifiable and acceptable. This situation can't be explained into being acceptable.
I'm gonna disagree with you on this one, with a handful of exceptionsmojo84 wrote:Also, shooting and killing the dog is not worse than shooting an innocent homeowner and fellow cop. Humans>animals
EEllis wrote:This was not a wrong address call. These were officers responding to a call that were given limited info and seemingly were trying to do their job. They did not show up at the wrong address, they came to the area given and investigated a house that met the description they were given. There doesn't seem to be an issue with them checking out the house but rather if they should have entered on finding an open door. Now we don't have all the info but training is exactly the issue. Are they trained to enter a home under those circumstances? If no then they screwed up by the numbers but I don't know what their training is or the Dept policy. Saying "if anyone else" is meaningless in this situation because no one else has a job that would put them there.talltex wrote:EEllis wrote:
I see that as training. Is it or is it not how they were trained. Looking at a single event it's easy to play the 20/20 hindsight game but what if someone just broke in? I know others have said just wait for the guy to come out. But how were they trained, what if there were homeowners and the guy breaking in was armed or broke in for reasons other then theft? How long do cops wait? When would the cops start being so concerned about making a possible mistake that everything takes so long and they must comply with some insane standard which leaves their job impossible to do? Do you really hold cops responsible if they act 100% according to training? The training that the State, who would be the one to hold them responsible, gave them? It isn't a simple issue and legally police actions are, and should be, based of of what was reasonable for a police officer in that situation. Not what we think a police officer should do but what a normal cop with the same training would do. And we really don't have enough info to make any real accurate determinations.
addressing your points in order: 1. there were homeowners. 2.the guys breaking in were armed. 3.they did break in for reasons other than theft. 4.making sure you are at the correct address before you enter with guns drawn is NOT an insane standard, it's a bare minimum. 5.Yes they ARE responsible regardless of training if they if they go into someones home and shoot them...by mistake.
HOW they were trained isn't the issue. They screwed up..BADLY. Training didn't make them go to the wrong house to begin with...sloppy, careless procedures did. Just like it did in the Jerry Waller case last year in Ft. Worth, where two officers responded to a burglar alarm call and went to the house across the street from the correct address and and shot and killed Mr. Waller in his own garage. That is a monumental screw up. If anyone else shot or killed someone because they made a stupid mistake they would be charged and locked up. We've got to stop trying to defend these types of screw ups. When these three officers showed up at the wrong address, everything that happened from that point was their fault. They entered the wrong house. They shot and killed a dog that had every right to be in that house. They tried to kill an innocent homeowner (and luckily only wounded him). One officer shot another officer and seriously wounded him. That is just about as wrong as it can get, regardless of their training.
There's one more point to be considered. The article I read said the rear door of the home they entered was "unlocked", not "open." An unlocked door in a residence with no accompanying sign of forced entry (e.g., broken glass, fresh pry marks) is not a sufficient reason to believe unlawful entry has occurred because lots of people leave their doors unlocked, whether purposefully or not. The home description given by the complainant was not precise enough to narrow attention to one home, and there was apparently little effort made to search nearby properties to see if the subject was outside one of them.talltex wrote:addressing your points in order: 1. there were homeowners. 2.the guys breaking in were armed. 3.they did break in for reasons other than theft. 4.making sure you are at the correct address before you enter with guns drawn is NOT an insane standard, it's a bare minimum. 5.Yes they ARE responsible regardless of training if they if they go into someones home and shoot them...by mistake.EEllis wrote:
I see that as training. Is it or is it not how they were trained. Looking at a single event it's easy to play the 20/20 hindsight game but what if someone just broke in? I know others have said just wait for the guy to come out. But how were they trained, what if there were homeowners and the guy breaking in was armed or broke in for reasons other then theft? How long do cops wait? When would the cops start being so concerned about making a possible mistake that everything takes so long and they must comply with some insane standard which leaves their job impossible to do? Do you really hold cops responsible if they act 100% according to training? The training that the State, who would be the one to hold them responsible, gave them? It isn't a simple issue and legally police actions are, and should be, based of of what was reasonable for a police officer in that situation. Not what we think a police officer should do but what a normal cop with the same training would do. And we really don't have enough info to make any real accurate determinations.
HOW they were trained isn't the issue. They screwed up..BADLY. Training didn't make them go to the wrong house to begin with...sloppy, careless procedures did. Just like it did in the Jerry Waller case last year in Ft. Worth, where two officers responded to a burglar alarm call and went to the house across the street from the correct address and and shot and killed Mr. Waller in his own garage. That is a monumental screw up. If anyone else shot or killed someone because they made a stupid mistake they would be charged and locked up. We've got to stop trying to defend these types of screw ups. When these three officers showed up at the wrong address, everything that happened from that point was their fault. They entered the wrong house. They shot and killed a dog that had every right to be in that house. They tried to kill an innocent homeowner (and luckily only wounded him). One officer shot another officer and seriously wounded him. That is just about as wrong as it can get, regardless of their training.
EEllis wrote:To me if I were the home owner it may very well be.mojo84 wrote:Also, shooting and killing the dog is not worse than shooting an innocent homeowner and fellow cop. Humans>animals
Just because something can be explained doesn't mean it's justifiable and acceptable. This situation can't be explained into being acceptable.
Where did I ever say acceptable?
I get that. That was what I intended to convey.mojo84 wrote:
Again, the door wasn't open, it was unlocked. It states that plainly and clearly in the Georgia Bureau of Investigations.
If, under that situation, they are trained to enter a house then that would absolve the officers only for entering the home. The initial news release said suspicious person but the GBI latter confirmed that it was a burglary call. The guy walking his dog who called police told a reporter that he thought someone suspicious had entered a house. While I think the loss of a dog is devistating the issues to me are should they have entered, shoot no shoot for the homeowner, and the weapons control for the blue on blue. The dog makes the incident that much more tragic but officers are not, and should not in my opinion, be trained so the guilt or innocence of dog is a concern before reacting.mojo84 wrote:EEllis wrote:To me if I were the home owner it may very well be.mojo84 wrote:Also, shooting and killing the dog is not worse than shooting an innocent homeowner and fellow cop. Humans>animals
Just because something can be explained doesn't mean it's justifiable and acceptable. This situation can't be explained into being acceptable.
Where did I ever say acceptable?
Explaining it away as a "training" issue absolves the officers of their screw ups and tries to make their actions acceptable by putting the onus on the department. There was also a quote in the article the call was for a suspicious person and not a burglary. I don't know for sure what the call was initially for but showing up to an address where there wasn't a suspicious person nor a burglary in progress and then shooting an innocent homeowner, fellow cop and dog is completely unacceptable and can't be explained away. If they have no more info than the color of the house, they should err on the side of caution knowing how flimsy their info is.
One thing for sure when it comes to training, they apparently needed more shoot don't shoot scenario practice.
If that is the case then they would of acted contrary to their training and should be held responsible.Excaliber wrote: There's one more point to be considered. The article I read said the rear door of the home they entered was "unlocked", not "open." An unlocked door in a residence with no accompanying sign of forced entry (e.g., broken glass, fresh pry marks) is not a sufficient reason to believe unlawful entry has occurred because lots of people leave their doors unlocked, whether purposefully or not. The home description given by the complainant was not precise enough to narrow attention to one home, and there was apparently little effort made to search nearby properties to see if the subject was outside one of them.
What can be reasonably inferred from the circumstances is that the home in question is very likely occupied by one or more lawful occupants. Any dog found there is almost certainly there lawfully as well. IMHO, Entering under those circumstances without any indication of exigent circumstances (screams, gunshots, etc.) and firing at anyone and everyone encountered inside is reckless at best and borders on criminal negligence.
I don't care one whit about their training. If entry was made under the circumstances outlined by Excaliber, then it was unconstitutional and criminal. If they were doing as they were trained, then everyone involved in the training program are also guilty. "I was only following orders" didn't work at Nuremberg and it shouldn't work in law enforcement circles.EEllis wrote:If that is the case then they would of acted contrary to their training and should be held responsible.Excaliber wrote: There's one more point to be considered. The article I read said the rear door of the home they entered was "unlocked", not "open." An unlocked door in a residence with no accompanying sign of forced entry (e.g., broken glass, fresh pry marks) is not a sufficient reason to believe unlawful entry has occurred because lots of people leave their doors unlocked, whether purposefully or not. The home description given by the complainant was not precise enough to narrow attention to one home, and there was apparently little effort made to search nearby properties to see if the subject was outside one of them.
What can be reasonably inferred from the circumstances is that the home in question is very likely occupied by one or more lawful occupants. Any dog found there is almost certainly there lawfully as well. IMHO, Entering under those circumstances without any indication of exigent circumstances (screams, gunshots, etc.) and firing at anyone and everyone encountered inside is reckless at best and borders on criminal negligence.
Ummm no. There is the perspective of the home owner and then from a public standpoint. I don't think shooting a aggressive dog matters as much as their entry from a legal standpoint.mojo84 wrote:Eellis, you are the one that said the shooting of the dog may be the worst part of it from the homeowner's perspective. Then you say it isn't. You are arguing with yourself.
Regardless of their training and how one spins it, these guys screwed up big time.
I'll just step away because obviously I'm causing an emotional response that I never intended. I tend to wait and get more info before making a conclusion. My statements were based on withholding judgment, not trying to excuse any misdeeds.Charles L. Cotton wrote:
I don't care one whit about their training. If entry was made under the circumstances outlined by Excaliber, then it was unconstitutional and criminal. If they were doing as they were trained, then everyone involved in the training program are also guilty. "I was only following orders" didn't work at Nuremberg and it shouldn't work in law enforcement circles.
Chas.
My buddy filled me in on what happened from the homeowner Chris. They were watching a movie in the evening. The wife heard a noise outside, they muted it and didn't hear anything. They starting watching again, and she hard more noises. They muted the TV, Chris went to the kitchen to see what was going on and the boxer started barking. He saw the officers in the doorway, multiple gun shots, the dog was dead and he was hit in the leg. Chris never had a gun or fired a shot. Apparently, the officer in the rear killed the dog, shot Chris, and injured his partner. It was a complete [expletive deleted] up by officers. I told my buddy they better sue them for all they can.
