-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
Elderly man shot, killed by officer performing welfare check
- Thread starter Dressed to Kill
- Start date
![[sad]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/004.gif "Sad [sad]")
![[rofl]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/013.gif "ROFL [rofl]")
Yup, thats always the best way, when theres no key though, the fire department opens the door, and the cops go in. And i agree, its basically a B&E and a 4th amendment violation, but done under the umbrella of the H&W/possible exigent circumstance, its all fine and well.
From a comment on the link given - re shots fired....
",My Dad is 85 and lives on the street where this happened just a few houses up the street he said he heard the shots, bam bam bam bam bam , not just 1 shot ,fast multiple shots, officer undoubtedly emptied his gun on him,..."
the_shootist
Banned
OK, I'm going to play devil's advocate here...what if the old timer were incapacitated and couldn't respond? It could be that the cop was trying to actually help the guy but when faced with the muzzle of a gun pointed at him, went into defense mode. Keep in mind, I'm in no way passing judgement one way or the other here. I wasn't there and don't know how it all went down
I really had no idea what the law was on welfare checks. From thelawdictionary.org:
"No court order is required for the police to conduct a welfare check. Essentially, as long as they have reasonable grounds to believe that an inhabitant in a residence in endangered, they can legally enter the premises. They typically knock on the door and await a response before announcing their law enforcement affiliation. If they still receive no response, they may enter the property....."
Seems to be very much at odds with the fourth amendment.
"No court order is required for the police to conduct a welfare check. Essentially, as long as they have reasonable grounds to believe that an inhabitant in a residence in endangered, they can legally enter the premises. They typically knock on the door and await a response before announcing their law enforcement affiliation. If they still receive no response, they may enter the property....."
Seems to be very much at odds with the fourth amendment.
mibro
NES Member
I find "improper training" to be an inadequate reason. So is the LEO some kind of robot who had the wrong version of the operating system installed? What about the basic decency and judgment of the man inside the uniform?
The guy died because the police officer had no reluctance to kill. I won't go as far as accusing the LEO of wanting to kill, but the end result was the same.
The LEO breaks into the house, finds the old man with a gun and at that point has a decision to make. Take three steps backwards with potentially some risk to himself, or mag dump.
If I were in that position I would without doubt back up and try to recover the situation without killing an innocent person.
The apparent mag dump is an indication of the LEO's mindset, imho. The other thing indicative of intent in similar cases is when law enforcement prevents medical help from reaching the victim until they're dead as there can then be only one side to the story.
And just one more thought. What kind of family leaves an elderly man to recuperate from heart surgery BY HIMSELF? Jeebus.
I am an upstanding, taxpaying, law-abiding citizen and I am shocked to find myself telling my children, "never call the police on a family member."
Last edited:
namedpipes
NES Member
No sympathy whatsoever.
He can get therapy and find another line of work more in keeping with his skill set. The victim can't do anything at this point. He's dead.
this.
All the stuff you described above comes down to improper training, sorry but thats what it is.
The LEO breaking into the house comes from the reluctance of the homeowners relatives doing the right thing and checking on the guy themselves, or setting up a CNA or visiting nurse or some shit. You call your local PD, and ask them to perform an H&W? If no one answers the door, we are going in, sorry. Why? Because of ****ing liability. You think we enjoy checking on your family members because youre to lazy? We sure dont. How about calling the PD because your 10 year old daughter wont go to school? I have news for you, this shit happens because no one wants to be responsible for anything; so you call the cops.
As far as shooting the guy? Obviously wrong. Why did he do it? Because he wasnt trained properly. He sees a gun, and shoots. Its easy to armchair quarterback these scenarios after they happen.
mibro
NES Member
When George Dubya Bush and his administration made torture the official policy of this great nation, I saw a comment in the NYT I believe made by an ex-KGB agent, who said "when you make torture your official policy, your security services become playgrounds for sadists and psychopaths."
I have a business acquaintance who's a former Pennsylvania State Trooper. He's told me some very entertaining stories. One of the things that stuck with me is that he'd groan when he was on a call and heard Trooper X was on the way because whenever Trooper X showed up someone was getting thrown down the stairs or otherwise getting their ass kicked.
So this is the problem for giving effective blanket immunity for "he sees a gun, and shoots" with no other consideration. When seeing a gun is sufficient cause for summary execution, even if it's in the hands of an elderly man woken from a drugged sleep in his own home, people who want to hurt and kill others - more Trooper Xs - will be drawn to police work, just as sadists and psychopaths are I'm sure now drawn to the CIA.
Jason Flare
NES Member
That is exactly what the family was worried about. They thought the old guy might be incapacitated.
There worries were well founded.
They talked to the police and their family member was incapacitated.
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2013
- Messages
- 1,686
- Likes
- 1,084
If im on that jury.. nothing. It's a home invasion.
I dont know anything about your ass (Im sure its very nice tho), but you are talking out of it. SCOTUS has nothing to do with this. Its all about liability, sorry chum.
If that call comes into the PD for a H&W check, and said check isnt performed, resulting in some sort of lawsuit inspiring scenario, everyones getting sued. This of course is a civil issue, not a criminal issue. If youre the COP, you err on the side of caution (booting in the door if need be) every single time. The one time you dont, then the municipality gets sued and much butthurt ensues.
You dont want this to happen? Then take responsibility for your family/friends or whatever, and conduct your own H&W checks.
- - - Updated - - -
Its not.
I think your "blanket immunity" is a bit of a stretch. Obviously, LE gets away with substantially more bad/good shoots than the citizens, and I agree, its bullshit.
Summary execution? Again, quite the stretch. When I was in patrol and got sent to a call with certain officers, I totally knew I was gonna be rolling around on the deck with someone, because certain guys will escalate situations for a multitude of reasons, but ultimately because they are *******s. And yes, those guys should be off tbe job, I know.
The guys being drawn to police work? Millenials. The last 10 guys we hired? All had college degrees in CJ (big ****ing deal it means squat in the real world), and not one of them had been in an actual physical fight with someone, and only 2 of them had been former military. Nope, they are attracted by the pay, retirement, and the badge. A very small % are attracted because they want to blow someone away.
You dont know how juries work do you.
There was a case in Texas fairly recently, homeowner blasted a cop executing a no knock at like 0400 or some ridiculous time of day. Homeowner killed the cop. Homeowner was found NG. Im pretty sure there are a few more instances of this same type scenario.
Last edited:
Do police have a specific duty to any specific individual or not, absent a special relationship existing? Absent said duty (which doesn't exist per SCOTUS or DC Court of Appeals) it logically follows there can't be liability. Also please cite where a municipality shelled out $ for lack of carrying out a wellness check. Being sued is not equivalent to actually being liable.
Last edited:
Im aware of the SCOTUS rulings, I get what youre saying. Have municipalities been sued over these types of scenarios? Of course. I dont have a win/loss ratio tho, but I do know this; most (if not all) municipalities will settle out of court. Its cheaper to pay someone $50K up front, instead of paying $100K for a trial, with the possibility of losingthat trial and having to kick in more dough. Its the game.
I dont know a single COP that wouldnt advise his command staff NOT to make entry in the scenario we have here.
After all is said and done, this municipality is going to pay big. Of course, it doesnt bring back the guy who got shot. Id love to see how these calls are addressed within the department now tho.
I opt-out of wellness checks. I won't expect anyone to check on me nor will I hold anyone liable if I die because I starve to death on my bathroom floor because I broke my back and can't move.
Where do I sign that form? It could save lives.
Id sign the same form!
But, it wouldnt make a difference. If we get the call, and no one answers? We are coming in. Your best bet? Tell your family and friends not to call the PD in an attempt to "help" you. Eventually, your neighbors will call the PD to report the awful smell coming out of the fly covered windows.
Most of these H&W calls are the result of someone feeling guilty. So they call us, and we do it. Guilt? Assuaged.
- - - Updated - - -
There it is.
Similar threads
