Man shot by Washington County tactical officers was armed, thought intruder was on his property,

oregonlive.com ^ | 14 March, 2012 | Maxine Bernstein

[piytar]

Mayor Sam Adams also released a statement: "The City takes incidents such as this very seriously. As with any officer-involved shooting, there will be a thorough pro-forma investigation and we will make sure every element is examined officer is exonerated, the facts be damned."

Fixed for accuracy...

[dragnet2]

I KNOW the courts don’t see it that way

I'm glad you noticed that. I just commented on your making a distinction between the two.

A big difference between killing someone, leaving an actual dead body, and someone alleging you attempted to kill someone. This is not even debatable.

[GilesB]

yeah, I went to the google map view - it is really hard to tell. Sidewalks leading from the street back to other buildings, but no way of knowing what kind of buildings.

The picture with the article shows a very large building - eithe a very large home, or a multi-family residence. There is what looks like a double-wide entrance door, but there is no way to determine if that is what it is or not.

I’m just spitballing, trying to find some rationale for “walking through the house”.

The reporting is awful - I think the most important part of the whole story, or at least what SOUNDS like the most important part from the reporting, is just tossed out in passing. The reporter should be digging latrines after that article!

[GilesB]

Strawman - your argument should be either:
There is a difference between killing someone and trying to kill someone (and I say there is NO moral difference).

OR

There is a difference between killing someone and someone alleging you killed someone.

OF COURSE there is a difference between killing someone and someone alleging you tried to kill someone - but there is a difference between killing someone and someone alleging that you killed someone also.

Either:
1) you understand the point that I’m making and are intentionally using sophistry for whatever purpose you might have.

OR

2) you don’t understand the point I’m making, and you accidently used fallacy to make your point. In which case, I have no further words to clarify my point for you.

Either way, I don’t want to continue this.

[Dead Corpse]

Yes... You should have. People in this situation should also look into criminal charges being filed against those responsible for such blatant SNAFU's. USC Title 18, Sec 242. Deprivation of Civil Rights under Color of law.

Harassment, assault and battery, official oppression... Whatever will stick.

Until they are forced to just stop buying us off via tax payer funded civil claims, and until they suffer personally, this will continue.

[stephenjohnbanker]

” Yes... You should have. People in this situation should also look into criminal charges being filed against those responsible for such blatant SNAFU’s. USC Title 18, Sec 242. Deprivation of Civil Rights under Color of law.
Harassment, assault and battery, official oppression... Whatever will stick.

Until they are forced to just stop buying us off via tax payer funded civil claims, and until they suffer personally, this will continue.”

If I could do it over again, I would! At the time, I had no idea how bad this abuse of power has become. Since then, I have educated myself on just how bad this has gotten. It is now almost an epidemic.

[OneWingedShark]

>>More War on Drugs casualties.
>
>Er, more war on murderers, not everything is about drugs, unless your addicted.

He’s actually correct if you’re willing to concede that these no-knock/ninja-warrior raids are the result of the War on Drugs.

[Gilbo_3]

got claymores now huh ???

[dragnet2]

Is this dial an argument?

No it isn't

It appears to be.

No it doesn't!

[Travis McGee]

“Come in heavy” is the military way. Overwhelming force. Ask questions later. They learned it in Mosul and Ramadi.

[Travis McGee]

Gangster Government, and Sakharov’s Immunity

http://www.enemiesforeignanddomestic.com/efadGG.htm

Save it for a rainy day.

[TigersEye]

Ibarra said a stranger came through the home, and left through the front door.

Oh, no no no. You get shot in this house for that. Or your throat slit in the dark.

[dragnet2]

How easy and inexpensive would it be with an unmarked car/van conducting surveillance on the suspect location, until he walks out to leave. He's away from the home, outside the door, with no access to anything inside, and simple put him under arrest, then search the home if a legitimate warrant has been secured.

No innocent neighbors shot to death or close to it, no stray rounds into the neighbors homes, no citizens hitting the floor from armed commando swat teams opening up in the neighborhood, no command posts, no tanks or armored vehicles, flash bangs, etc.

[OneWingedShark]

>What are we judging/punishing, the guys competence or his intent?

While intent should certainly be taken into consideration, there are facts to consider as well; in the case of attempted murder there are no dead bodies, otherwise it would not be an attempt. But the action cannot rightly be divorced from intent, otherwise the little old lady who almost runs you over because she doesn’t see you would be just as culpable of attempted murder as your insane [ex-]girlfriend trying to run you down and only failing because you ran between a few big trees.

[Chode]

i thought warrants were were only good between dawn and dusk...

[stephenjohnbanker]

“How easy and inexpensive would it be with an unmarked car/van conducting surveillance on the suspect location, until he walks out to leave. He’s away from the home, outside the door, with no access to anything inside, and simple put him under arrest, then search the home if a legitimate warrant has been secured.
No innocent neighbors shot to death or close to it, no stray rounds into the neighbors homes, no citizens hitting the floor from armed commando swat teams opening up in the neighborhood, no command posts, no tanks or armored vehicles, flash bangs, etc. “

And miss out on all that FUN?

I thought the original Swat teams were to handle very dangerous criminals, in the most dire circumstances.

Now, they send 10 cops out to arrest a 130 pound runt,break down the door when they can see you are unarmed through the glass, and trash your house, even after they know the perp is not there!!

Then, once you make a monkey out of them, in a fit of desperation, they check your arms for track marks....bunch of child/bozos!!

[wastedyears]

There it is.

[supercat]

As are the judges who allow this to happen in the first place.

If a judge wanted to abide by the Constitution, he would allow defendants to have factual matters related to the reasonableness and legitimacy of searches put before the jury, and instruct the jury that they should not construe against the defendant any evidence gathered in a search if:

1. The cops executing the search did not do so in a reasonable fashion, making a good faith effort to minimize risk and harm to persons and property.
2. The cops used a warrant which obtained by use of something other than a good-faith presentation of probable cause to believe that a crime had been committed and that the requested search would produce evidence of such crime, backed by the testimony of someone with personal knowledge supporting that fact.
3. The cops did not have a legitimate warrant in their possession, and did not have a good faith belief that both (1) if they presented their case before a judge, a warrant would be approved, and (2) the evidence they sought to collect would be destroyed or spoiled by the time a warrant could be obtained.
4. The cops did not make a good faith effort to describe what they actually expected or sought to find.

In many cases, juries will consider evidence that they really shouldn't, if such evidence would prove the defendant guilty of heinous crimes. On the other hand, some police "searches" are far more heinous than the crimes of which their victims stand accused, and jurors would be unlikely to convict someone who posed less of a danger to society than the police who seek to prosecute him.