JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
I never heard whether the Sheriffs announced themselves. They should have and the bad ending may not have happened. The resident should have asked who was out there before opening the door or had them visible through a window to ensure it was the Sheriffs.
 
I ain't buying this either...
From the judge:
"Andrew Scott made a fateful decision that night: he chose to answer his door with a gun in his hand. That changed everything. That is the one thing that — more than anything else — led to this tragedy," Conway wrote in her Sept. 18, 2014, decision to toss out the lawsuit.
What do you mean you "ain't buying this either"? What is it that you aren't "buying"?

There is literally a link to the judge's opinion in the body of the article so you can read it for yourself. You don't have to trust the Reuters reporters. The judge's opinion is quoted accurately in the article. Here's the whole conclusion minus orders:
By any measure, this is a tragic case. The Court sympathizes with Plaintiffs' loss. The Court also understands the sentiment held by some in the community who believe that an innocent person who answered a late-night knock at his door was needlessly killed by the police. But Andrew Scott made a fateful decision that night: he chose to answer his door with a gun in his hand. That changed everything. That is the one thing that – more than anything else – led to this tragedy.
Those who view the actions of Deputy Sylvester as wrong may be tempted to invoke the ancient legal maxim, "Where there's a wrong, there's a remedy." However, the civil rights statutes that afford relief for police misconduct are not that simple. The appellate courts have held time and time again that there are strict legal requirements that must be met before an officer or his employing agency may be held liable in damages. An individual officer cannot be held liable unless the law he has violated was clearly established. The policy reason underpinning this rule is well-settled: to allow government officials to carry out their discretionary duties without fear of personal liability. When it comes to avoiding constitutional violations, and amidst uncertainty, government officials are not required to err on the side of caution. Further, the officer's employing agency can be held liable only if an underlying constitutional violation occurred.
None of these requirements have been met in the present case. This Court is duty-bound by constitutional oath to apply the law, regardless of sympathy or prejudice. It has done just that here.
Here's how the pro-2nd Amendment Rutherford Institute characterized the shooting and legal decision:
According to a federal appeals court, police will not be held accountable for banging on the wrong door at 1:30 am, failing to identify themselves as police, and then repeatedly shooting and killing the innocent homeowner who answered the door while holding a gun in self-defense. Although 26-year-old Andrew Scott had committed no crime and never fired a single bullet or lifted his firearm against police, he was gunned down by police who were investigating a speeding incident by engaging in a middle-of-the-night "knock and talk" in Scott's apartment complex.
 
"Don't open the door!!!" Massab Ayoob
What is your point? This thread is about police shootings of people cleared under "qualified immunity" not about what to do when someone knocks on your door.

Andrew Scott probably never heard of Massad Ayoob. Maybe he should have but because he didn't follow Ayoob's advice are we supposed to believe that Scott's shooting death by police was automatically justified?
 
Thank you for the example of Reuters being an untrustable entity that wants to discredit not only law enforcement , but also the firearms owning community.
Did you even read the article? If so, please be so kind as to point out what it is in the article that supports your claim about discrediting LE and firearms owners. Thanks.

P. S. I wouldn't blindly trust Reuters or any other media outlet.
 
What is your point? This thread is about police shootings of people cleared under "qualified immunity" not about what to do when someone knocks on your door.

Andrew Scott probably never heard of Massad Ayoob. Maybe he should have but because he didn't follow Ayoob's advice are we supposed to believe that Scott's shooting death by police was automatically justified?
Folks are allowed to comment as they wish, or is it your intent to stifle any discussion? Maybe you could post then ask staff to close your posts for comment, then again it'd be pointless in a forum, wouldn't you agree?
 
Folks are allowed to comment as they wish, or is it your intent to stifle any discussion? Maybe you could post then ask staff to close your posts for comment, then again it'd be pointless in a forum, wouldn't you agree?
My intent was to ask a non-rhetorical question: How is Massad Ayoob's advice relevant to the main subject of the thread? Since when is asking questions considered stifling a conversation?
 
Truth is officer fatalities (on job) have been in decline starting in the 60s. IMO the extreme end of the spectrum should not drive the policies of policing.
Average annual officer fatalities
1960's - 160 per year average
1970's - 234 (peak of 285 in 1974)
1980's - 192 (still higher than the 60's)
1990's - 163 (finally about the same as the 60's)
In the last decade we are still at about 162 per year. If you adjust this to saves due to body armor, better tactics, more firepower when necessary, improved communications, and especially medical saves due to EMS and what can be done in and Emergency Department this number would be massively higher. Officer injury numbers have been mitigated by many of the above along with tasers, OC spray and other tactics.

To me these numbers do not show the outliers but overall trends.

So your saying their is no red flag law enforcement or warrents put out unjustly. That's following orders.
Warrants are issued by the courts, not law enforcement. Red flag orders are also issued by the courts. Can mistakes be made on warrants? Sure. I've seen it happen and ended up not arresting the person. Can it happen? Sure, but if it is "just following orders" when someone has a valid warrant then it's pretty difficult to arrest people.
 
Average annual officer fatalities
1960's - 160 per year average
1970's - 234 (peak of 285 in 1974)
1980's - 192 (still higher than the 60's)
1990's - 163 (finally about the same as the 60's)
In the last decade we are still at about 162 per year. If you adjust this to saves due to body armor, better tactics, more firepower when necessary, improved communications, and especially medical saves due to EMS and what can be done in and Emergency Department this number would be massively higher. Officer injury numbers have been mitigated by many of the above along with tasers, OC spray and other tactics.

To me these numbers do not show the outliers but overall trends.


Warrants are issued by the courts, not law enforcement. Red flag orders are also issued by the courts. Can mistakes be made on warrants? Sure. I've seen it happen and ended up not arresting the person. Can it happen? Sure, but if it is "just following orders" when someone has a valid warrant then it's pretty difficult to arrest people.

We did a cross-agency warrant sweep on DV offenders who had not appeared in court. We got 36 warrants. 34 wrong addresses. Definitely frustrating.
 
I suspect if he didn't open the door at 1:30am in the morning, the interaction wouldn't have happened.
Sure, that's quite possibly true although police don't typically go away just because no one answers the door if they think someone of interest is home.

However, the fact is that Andrew Scott did open the door. So what has Massad Ayoob's advice got to do with what actually happened in the real life situation under discussion here and how does it bear on any discussion of the 5th Amendment or qualified immunity?
 
I never heard whether the Sheriffs announced themselves. They should have and the bad ending may not have happened.
The decedent's GF, apparently, testified there was no announcment. The federal district court opinion contains no testimony that LEOs did announce themselves. Here's what the opinion says about policy:
Sheriff Gary Borders ("Borders") states that when an officer knocks on the door of a dwelling and is executing a search or arrest warrant, the officer is "required to announce that he is law enforcement and his purpose, as in that situation he intends to enter the dwelling, forcibly if necessary." (Gary Borders Aff. (Doc. No. 50-7) at ¶ 7). However, "[w]hen an officer is knocking on the door of a dwelling to ask the occupant for assistance in obtaining information, there is no requirement that he must announce himself as law enforcement." (Id. at ¶ 8). Borders further states that this is also true if an officer "is seeking a suspect who may be in the dwelling, but [the officer] does not intend to enter the dwelling forcibly." (Id.). "Accordingly, the Sheriff's Office does not have a policy, custom, or procedure addressing whether an officer must announce that he is law enforcement when he knocks on the door for that purpose." (Id.). Whether an officer announces as law enforcement "when knocking for that purpose is left to the discretion of that particular officer because each situation is different and the appropriate actions may differ also." (Id.).

No policy changes occurred since the events of July 15, 2012. (Gary Borders Dep. (Doc. No. 37) at 28:13-16). Deputy Sylvester was not disciplined for his actions that evening. (Id. at 37:16-19).
 
Last Edited:
How many millions of interactions where nothing goes wrong? To think this officer and his partners had no remorse for this tragedy is suspect as well.
I read the article and didn't see anything that addressed whether the deputy or his partners did or did not have remorse or any other similar sentiment. I also did a text search of the article on "remorse" and got zero hits. Since the deputy maintains that he acted lawfully to stop an imminent threat I would not expect him express any remorse.
 
I see both sides to this. On one hand, merely having a gun is not something that people should be dying for. On the other hand, it is the totality of circumstances that need to be considered, not simply stopping there and expecting a judgement.

I think about from the perspective of being around other gun people. If everything is holstered or demeanor is clearly peaceful, no immediately perceived threat, if there is a gun in hand, the context and the demeanor of the situation very drastically will determine if I perceive that as a threat and act accordingly or not. If someone presents themselves to me gun in hand and there isn't a very obvious reason for that (like we are at the range together) then yeah, I am going to perceive deadly threat because having a gun in your hand is a immediate precursor to that gun being fired at me.

From what I recall from watching the video of this more than a month ago was the guy effectively suffered from terminal stupidity. Opening the door, gun in hand doesn't leave officers much decision time to determine deadly threat or not, I would have likely figured "threat" as well since answering the door gun in hand isn't my idea of a peaceful action, but is more likely a precursor to using it.

Having a right to bear arms doesn't mean that basic common sense isn't also required to be used effectively. The more freedom we have means the more responsible and intelligent we have to be, and also being willing to live with the consequences of that freedom. I'm preferential to dangerous liberty myself, hence me chalking that up to an unfortunate outcome of stupidity.
 
If the police come to my door (on my several acres) without a valid reason they are trespassing. I'm not required to talk to them, or to allow them to remain on my property. If they have a valid reason to be there they need to use common courtesy, like identifying themselves and why they are there. Without a warrant they have no right to shout orders or to enter my dwelling. I have a perfect right to carry a gun in my hand anywhere on my property any time without being shot at. If there are laws and/or police policies that justify any other behavior they are dead wrong, and need to be changed.

I support the police. My dad was a chief, my nephew a detective lieutenant, my cousin a CHP, another cousin an elected county sheriff, another cousin an elected DA. My upbringing was steeped in policing and police stories. My dad was vehement in his condemnation of what he called "modern policing". He handled drug addicts, gangs, mobs, murders, thieves, domestic disputes, mental crises, etc. He knew his job. He didn't make decisions out of fear or panic. He thought that modern police training was just indoctrination in being fearful. He said it produced "hair trigger cops", who were spooked by everyday policing situations, and were a danger to themselves and others.

Law enforcement officers are peacekeepers, not judges, juries, or executioners. Is it a dangerous job? Certainly. But you know that before you take the job.
 
If the police come to my door (on my several acres) without a valid reason they are trespassing. I'm not required to talk to them, or to allow them to remain on my property. If they have a valid reason to be there they need to use common courtesy, like identifying themselves and why they are there. Without a warrant they have no right to shout orders or to enter my dwelling. I have a perfect right to carry a gun in my hand anywhere on my property any time without being shot at. If there are laws and/or police policies that justify any other behavior they are dead wrong, and need to be changed.

I support the police. My dad was a chief, my nephew a detective lieutenant, my cousin a CHP, another cousin an elected county sheriff, another cousin an elected DA. My upbringing was steeped in policing and police stories. My dad was vehement in his condemnation of what he called "modern policing". He handled drug addicts, gangs, mobs, murders, thieves, domestic disputes, mental crises, etc. He knew his job. He didn't make decisions out of fear or panic. He thought that modern police training was just indoctrination in being fearful. He said it produced "hair trigger cops", who were spooked by everyday policing situations, and were a danger to themselves and others.

Law enforcement officers are peacekeepers, not judges, juries, or executioners. Is it a dangerous job? Certainly. But you know that before you take the job.

In all fairness, its a completely different type if recruit today vs back then. You have a more "diverse" group of people of more varying size and physical capability. You also have to deal with the product of a "violence solves nothing" upbringing. You have to take these people and get them to be effectively violent. If they don't get there, the confidence never develops and they can't effectively operate when things go bad.

So, you have to instill fear. Show them what happens when they are complacent. Show them how fast they can get stabbed or shot. Show them videos of cops getting the boots taken to them. The video of the female getting beat in an elevator while trying to retain her gun, is a good one. Its the only way to get them to take their head out of their azz because you'll never get them to be comfortable in their own skin.
 
If the police come to my door (on my several acres) without a valid reason they are trespassing. I'm not required to talk to them, or to allow them to remain on my property. If they have a valid reason to be there they need to use common courtesy, like identifying themselves and why they are there. Without a warrant they have no right to shout orders or to enter my dwelling. I have a perfect right to carry a gun in my hand anywhere on my property any time without being shot at. If there are laws and/or police policies that justify any other behavior they are dead wrong, and need to be changed.

I support the police. My dad was a chief, my nephew a detective lieutenant, my cousin a CHP, another cousin an elected county sheriff, another cousin an elected DA. My upbringing was steeped in policing and police stories. My dad was vehement in his condemnation of what he called "modern policing". He handled drug addicts, gangs, mobs, murders, thieves, domestic disputes, mental crises, etc. He knew his job. He didn't make decisions out of fear or panic. He thought that modern police training was just indoctrination in being fearful. He said it produced "hair trigger cops", who were spooked by everyday policing situations, and were a danger to themselves and others.

Law enforcement officers are peacekeepers, not judges, juries, or executioners. Is it a dangerous job? Certainly. But you know that before you take the job.

Though I agree, in reality how does this play out - would you expect officers to be fired upon before using their gun?

If we get really precise about ROE it could help determine what is "reasonable" or not.

In the example you gave of being on your own property with a gun drawn, I agree, nothing wrong but some circumstances will make that more prudent than others. I carry OWB but under a t shirt most days and times I am home. I don't draw it out of my holster to greet people though who are knocking on my door. From my perspective I would expect officers to apply the same tactic that I do for whether my gun comes out of the holster or not. If it comes out of my holster, there is a high degree of chance it will be used, otherwise I would not have pulled it. So in the last 5-10 interactions I have had with police officers, my gun has been holstered, their gun was holstered, and everyone goes home safe. (Although I don't believe any of them was aware of my holstered gun)
 
Though I agree, in reality how does this play out - would you expect officers to be fired upon before using their gun?

If we get really precise about ROE it could help determine what is "reasonable" or not.

In the example you gave of being on your own property with a gun drawn, I agree, nothing wrong but some circumstances will make that more prudent than others. I carry OWB but under a t shirt most days and times I am home. I don't draw it out of my holster to greet people though who are knocking on my door. From my perspective I would expect officers to apply the same tactic that I do for whether my gun comes out of the holster or not. If it comes out of my holster, there is a high degree of chance it will be used, otherwise I would not have pulled it. So in the last 5-10 interactions I have had with police officers, my gun has been holstered, their gun was holstered, and everyone goes home safe. (Although I don't believe any of them was aware of my holstered gun)

I wouldn't want to do a felony arrest or clear buildings with a holstered weapon.
 
I wouldn't want to do a felony arrest or clear buildings with a holstered weapon.

The actual felony or person in question might make a difference, but as a general rule I probably wouldn't either - I would consider those circumstances to be outside the standard "basic holstered gun etiquette" I was referring to - my stance was more from the peaceful unknown contacts situation.

I really don't envy police, they seem to have an impossible job, I know I couldn't be one, I already believe a lot of people should be shot for things police aren't allowed to shoot people for. Also, I think a lot more people should be hung, because this revolving door jail justice system is a joke. If those were realities police wouldn't have nearly such an impossible task because a lot of societal garbage wouldn't be alive anymore.

That being said, I am staunchly in the camp of dangerous liberty and consider my house my castle and will treat invaders accordingly, but I perceive opening my door to greet people as a scenario where if I thought I needed a gun in hand to do it, the door should just never open.

This all starts at home and is reinforced through the education system. Majority of all problems society has would be remedied by fixing the family unit. That isn't a government's responsibility though, and I fear to many generations of cradle to grave welfare has put this country on a path to some unpleasant inevitable outcomes. Thread drift, but it's late and I'm in a ranting mood. :)
 

Upcoming Events

Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top