Family Says 911 Tape Caught Cops Planning Cover-Up After Shooting

Courthouse News Service ^ | 23 September 2009 | Jamie Ross

[mvpel]

How can someone be shot 6 times in the back and live to tell about it?

If you're shot by a cop...

[voicereason]

she told Sgt. Sean Coutts that her husband was inside holding the intruder at gunpoint.

Just further proof that you need to shoot first at somebody who doesn't belong in your house. This way you can be ready for their compatriots who might be coming.

[supremedoctrine]

there ‘is’ also apparently two ways to say ‘there are two sides to every story’.

[HairOfTheDog]

I don't know if "I've got your back" is truly a cover up... merely a statement of support. -and I'm not yet commenting on the bizarre handling of the injured man after the shooting, but in fairness to the officer, apparently the information about the homeowner holding the intruder at gunpoint was NOT passed on to this cop, and given that, I can see that the situation would be very difficult for a cop to read walking into a very tense scene.

Thank goodness the homeowner will live.

[mvpel]

Cop: “Drop your weapon!! Drop your weapon!!”

How hard is that?

But I still can’t say that up until the point of abuse of the victim and the beginnings of a cover-up it’s anything but a tragic mistake in a highly tense and chaotic situation.

This exact situation is covered in some detail in Massad Ayoob’s “Judicious Use of Deadly Force” class, about ways to help insure that first-responders don’t mistake you for the bad guy.

[HairOfTheDog]

How hard is that?

I don't know, I wasn't there and my life wasn't the one on the line. That tends to change perception of events. It's obviously a tragic mistake, and from the sounds of things, if the article is at all accurate, which we should always doubt, it's possible better communication of vital information by everyone could have prevented the whole thing.

But life, and many times death, is full of human error.

This exact situation is covered in some detail in Massad Ayoob’s “Judicious Use of Deadly Force” class, about ways to help insure that first-responders don’t mistake you for the bad guy.

Is there a short version on exactly what he recommends? Because with all the tension and heightened adrenaline, it seems you've got about 2 seconds to explain yourself in this situation.

[mvpel]

I don’t have my notes handy, so my recollection won’t be comprehensive, but among the recommendations were one of the things that they tried to do - tell the dispatcher that there’s an armed good guy on scene.

The dispatcher’s failure to inform the cops is a grievous mistake.

Also he recommends to convey a description of you to the dispatchers.

Another is to, if possible, stand in such a way that you’ll see the responding officers before they see you, and you can call out to them. Back against the wall, facing the entrance, and the like.

I’ll see if I can track down my notes.

[HairOfTheDog]

Yeah - but if the story is correct, these guys were not responding to the 911 call. They heard the invasion on their own (???) And were responding on their own, not to the call?

Sure... absolutely if you make a 911 call about a home invasion, and you are armed, you should disclose that. My brother actually has a rather amusing story to tell about that, but in this case, if the telling is correct, it’s as if there was no call, the cop in the room only had what his eyes could see to guide him.

[Filo]

Do you really want to make that 911 call after all?

I'll never dial 911 and the police aren't allowed on my property.

Just another example of that 99% giving the 1% a bad name.

[Filo]

there is always two sides to every story

And the bootlickers will always believe the cops, even when they lie (which they always do.)

Fortunately each one of these incidents sucks a few more dumbasses off of the bootlicker pile.

It must be getting pretty lonely there about now.

[Filo]

Ah, come on Decker, you know the deal: if you’re not cop you’re little people.

Hey, a promotion!

Most cops don't consider non-cops people, little or otherwise.

[Ramius]

The bit about the rather bizarre handling of the injured homeowner doesn’t make any sense. So much that I wonder if that part of the story is actually true, or maybe there was something different going on. Put him on the hood and drove down the road? I’m just not buying it...

I agree that the key mistake here was not passing along the essential tidbit of information to the cop making entry— that the homeowner already had the perp and was holding him at gunpoint. That cop really needed to know that. Could he have handled to situation differently anyway? Maybe, but those decisions are made in nanoseconds and we don’t really know enough to say.

[HairOfTheDog]

Fortunately each one of these incidents sucks a few more dumbasses off of the bootlicker pile. It must be getting pretty lonely there about now.

I think it's pretty much always a little lonely being the guy tasked with going in all the dangerous places. The smartasses are hardly ever there, sharing their perfect all-knowing judgment at the moments when it really would have helped.

[HairOfTheDog]

The bit about the rather bizarre handling of the injured homeowner doesn’t make any sense. So much that I wonder if that part of the story is actually true, or maybe there was something different going on. Put him on the hood and drove down the road? I’m just not buying it...

The only thing that might make sense is if the situation was still deemed dangerous (there's an armed intruder who is not accounted for in this particular story and shouldn't be forgotten!) and they needed to get him clear of the situation because paramedics won't go in a hot scene like that.

Even with what appears to be lots of mistakes made, I really hate to see mistakes like this end up in lawsuits for what is inevitably, millions in taxpayer money. How millions of dollars fixes what happened to these people still needs to be explained to me before I'd award damages.

[Filo]

I think it's pretty much always a little lonely being the guy tasked with going in all the dangerous places. The smartasses are hardly ever there, sharing their perfect all-knowing judgment at the moments when it really would have helped.

Yeah. Poor cops. Nobody was there to tell them that it's bad to shoot someone in the back six times and then drag them through the dirt, toss them on the hood of a car and drive 'em around.

You're right. I feel bad for those guys and the really hard, dangerous job they do. . .

Only, it doesn't even rate in the top ten most dangerous jobs and the police have fought and won cases allowing them to reject candidates as too smart.

Hmmm.

Here's the reality champ: these guys are an embarrassment to humanity and should be executed for what they did.

Unfortunately, as proven by them being cleared of their crimes, the police not only don't object to scumbags like this on the force, they encourage it.

That makes most of us with sense (not you) realize that it’s more dangerous to call the cops than to deal with criminals ourselves.

[Tired of Taxes]

I really hate to see mistakes like this end up in lawsuits for what is inevitably, millions in taxpayer money. How millions of dollars fixes what happened to these people still needs to be explained to me before I'd award damages.

According to the other article linked somewhere on this thread, the man is still suffering from his injuries. I understand your concern about taxpayer dollars. (See my screenname.) But, the victim is entitled to some kind of restitution. Maybe police officers should carry insurance to cover potential victims in cases like this one....? Just a thought. Or do they already?

This case sounds terrible. The homeowner did everything he was supposed to do, and then LE messed up completely. Glad to hear he survived at least.

[HairOfTheDog]

Yeah. Poor cops. Nobody was there to tell them that it's bad to shoot someone in the back six times and then drag them through the dirt, toss them on the hood of a car and drive 'em around.

The other person who was not there, and who has a record of biased reporting and just plain mistakes of fact, is the writer of the article where you got all your facts.

Just sayin... You might want to have that knee jerk looked at. It appears to be more of a chronic tick against all cops, than merely a reaction to this story, and it pretty much makes me discount anything further you have to say.

[HairOfTheDog]

I’m also glad he survived. Actual damages, actual costs... I can easily be convinced of. I don’t have a problem with that, where negligence and fault can be found. I have a problem with “punitive” damages: Money awarded merely to punish, and “pain and suffering” costs which really make accidents and tragedies turn into ‘get rich schemes’ that quickly drain my sympathy for their actual damages.

[Filo]

The other person who was not there, and who has a record of biased reporting and just plain mistakes of fact, is the writer of the article where you got all your facts.

Yeah, I'm sure.

Just sayin... You might want to have that knee jerk looked at.

No need. It hasn't been wrong yet. Cops are dicks. They prove it daily. 'Nuff said.

It appears to be more of a chronic tick against all cops, than merely a reaction to this story, and it pretty much makes me discount anything further you have to say.

Not all cops. Just the 99% giving the rest a bad name.

As for you discounting what I have to say, boo-friggin-hoo. I couldn't possibly care less what one more bootlicker thinks. My being right kind-of insulates me from that level of concern.

[HairOfTheDog]

Cops are dicks. They prove it daily. 'Nuff said.

You mean the millions of them who go their entire careers without ending up in the news? Or just the few you hear about?

Truth is, there are enough who do screw up to easily skew perspective for the shallow and reactionary. I don't lick any boots, and I'm not saying they never screw up. I know they screw up, every human endeavor has it's share of human error. Just some jobs make the consequences of that error much more severe than others. Human error is NOT the same thing as malice.