Cop has wrong apartment, shoots US airman, bodycam footage

[Yarome]

Question, is it reasonable for an officer investigating a domestic disturbance call to believe someone answering the door with a gun in hand is going to shoot them?

Absolutely not. There is no question that a law abiding citizen has the right to arm themselves when facing what appears to be an aggressive and unknown threat within their own home. The onus is on the LEO who is supposed to be a professional and well trained in threat assessment.

Even if he had the right apartment, that officer had no idea if the man holding the firearm was the aggressor or the victim holding off his attacker at gunpoint, right?

It becomes a real slippery slope. What's next? A cop responding to an armed robbery at a grocery store mistakenly shoots an innocent that was open carrying and we are going to say, "Well, that was stupid of him to be open carrying, hu!' (??)

There are what? Something like 150million law abiding citizens with firearms in their homes? A good chunk carry. What's "reasonable" to assume is that an LEO is going to have encounters with armed law abiding citizens as a routine matter of course. The mere presence of a firearm, in and of itself, does not constitute a threat.

I don't believe a, "when in doubt, shoot to kill" LE approach is in any way "reasonable", but that's just me.

 

[Koda]

Even if he had the right apartment, that officer had no idea if the man holding the firearm was the aggressor or the victim holding off his attacker at gunpoint, right?

What if the man holding the gun was indeed an aggressor?

 

[Andy54Hawken]

Should you be shot for simply answering your door with a gun in your hand by law enforcement .....No.

However.....
Doing so is fraught with peril....
Because you have no idea of how the law enforcement officer perceives you and your intentions.

You may think that you are not a threat..and that you and your posture / body language is not aggressive or threatening....
The responding officer , with his limited information about the situation needs to make a snap judgement call here.
A call which may not be in your favor.
This can be caused be many different factors....most of which will be out of your control.

Please note that I am not faulting / bad mouthing or the like of law enforcement officers...
I am just trying to point out that you may have the right and or ability to answer the door with a firearm in your hand...
But there may be times where it is best not to do so.
Andy

 

[Yarome]

What if the man holding the gun was indeed an aggressor?

It makes no difference. Assert control over the situation, disarm/safe the weapon and then investigate.

The assumption that was obviously made was that a person with a firearm is an aggressor and poses an imminent threat. His actions prove that out, but he had absolutely no "reasonable" cause to reach that conclusion. That's the issue. He acted purely on assumptions without any evidence or provocation.

 

[WillametteWill]

The onus is on the LEO who is supposed to be a professional and well trained in threat assessment.

I covered this in a prior post. Let's do a threat assessment. You have credible evidence that there is a violent crime in progress from independent witnesses who point out the location of the threat. The officer is given the specific apartment number and goes to this exact apartment, so from what the officer did, there is no mistake. He believes the potential peril is so great that he risks his life to make contact while his backup is still en route (and as I stated prior, there is incessant complaining when officers wait for backup or don't take action quickly enough).

He is forced into a poor tactical position by the environment. He announces himself multiple times. The person inside the house makes statements that he knows the police are outside of his door. Now for the important point. This officer has likely had people open doors under similar circumstances and many other cases...NEVER HOLDING A GUN. Now put all of this together, the door is opened and there is a man (the alleged perpetrator is supposed to be male) with a gun.

If the person is a bad guy and the officer tries to issue commands, the officer is dead. He will be full of holes by the time he can react. Most folks on this form could empty half a mag in the time it takes someone to say, "Police, drop the gun," or something similar.

It's not about threat assessment (I think he did this pretty well with an unfortunately sad outcome). It's about the limits of human performance under extreme stress. Few have stood in doorways like this and been forced to make decisions.

What if the man holding the gun was indeed an aggressor?

Correct Koda, the officer would be dead as would the other victim.

Assert control over the situation, disarm/safe the weapon and then investigate.

It's much easier to type on a keyboard than in real life. Sorry, but I think the logic I'm seeing and the expectations for officers are more dangerous than the defund movement.

How about this. Shouldn't a responsible gun owner be...responsible? If you are going to be so stupid to open your door, when police are pounding on it, they obviously think something is wrong, and you choose to open the door with a gun, perhaps you shouldn't own a gun. And he was in the military so he should better understand these concepts of how this might turn out. How about we hold him to a higher standard? Nope, easier to blame the cops.

 

[Yarome]

It's not about threat assessment (I think he did this pretty well with an unfortunately sad outcome). It's about the limits of human performance under extreme stress. Few have stood in doorways like this and been forced to make decisions.

It's much easier to type on a keyboard than in real life. Sorry, but I think the logic I'm seeing and the expectations for officers are more dangerous than the defund movement.

How about this. Shouldn't a responsible gun owner be...responsible? If you are going to be so stupid to open your door, when police are pounding on it, they obviously think something is wrong, and you choose to open the door with a gun, perhaps you shouldn't own a gun. And he was in the military so he should better understand these concepts of how this might turn out. How about we hold him to a higher standard? Nope, easier to blame the cops.

I never said it was "smart" to just pop open your door with a gun in your hand, or that the guy's actions didn't in some way contribute to the end result, but he was well within his rights, was not being blatantly "irresponsible" (like waving it around or pointing it anywhere in the officers direction) and at no time posed an imminent threat that would justify deadly force. "Assumptions" on the LEO's side, however "reasonable" or not, are just that... assumptions and don't actually bear against the facts without further evidence.

We can talk about the LEO's perspective, reasoning and assumptions. I don't necessarily disagree, but what about the mans perspective? Was it reasonable for him to arm himself when it first appeared there was an aggressive threat at his door? Was it reasonable for him to assume that a LEO knocking on his door meant that he was being investigated as a violent offender of some crime? Knowing that he hadn't done anything wrong, there was nothing occurring in his home to warrant a LE presence, had no idea why LE would be at his door, felt absolutely no aggression and had no intention of posing a threat to the officer... was it reasonable for him to assume that he would still be shot on sight if his firearm is 'safed' down at his side and should therefore complete disarm himself?

What is probably the "smartest" option aside... under those circumstances... would most people reasonably consider that they will be shot on sight in their own home? Is that where we're at in this country?

Maybe a bit melodramatic, but to better highlight the potential dangers of this type of thought process.... it could easily sound like what is being said it that in any given situation citizens should be held to a higher standard to never present anything that may be reasonably assumed by a LEO to be a potential threat. With no overt threat of any kind, including verbal, or action on their part an officer may very well make assumptions, drop you in your tracks and... "in the moment" be reasonably justified in doing so. The main responsibility lies on the citizens shoulders.

That certainly does sound a whole lot like what you read about in the history books where tyranny took hold and ran rampant. It seems like a very dangerous road to start down and entertaining those kinds of responsibility shifts.

To repeat myself. Not that it is something I would chose or encourage, but If someone is of the type to not want to disarm themselves then yes. I agree they should have a plan of action to reduce risk on both sides of the equation. IE., Like I mentioned earlier, don't open the door and slow down the encounter to allow for communication and time to better assess the situation on both sides.

I believe it was a serious of unfortunate assumptions and circumstances to varying degrees on both sides that led to the mans death.

What I believe though is that the greatest and ultimate burden of responsibility lies with the one electing to exert deadly force. The man's "mistake"... they both would have walked away unharmed. The officers mistake... a man is dead that shouldn't be.

I very strongly support our men and women in blue, however, I do not support, "when in doubt, shoot" based on nothing more than reasonable assumptions, without any overt action, as justification for deadly force.

That said, part of "asserting control" that I mentioned earlier would certainly include the LEO bringing his firearm to bear on a potential threat. Even if he WAS a bad guy, his firearm was and continued to be pointing at the ground, the LEO obviously had the drop on him and had time to bring his firearm to bear, did he not? That put him in the position to fire first, did it not? If the guy flinches toward the officer in a threatening manner then sure... by all means... drop him!


Bad things do happen in the heat of the moment with absolutely no ill intentions. That doesn't really justify a bad decision though... and hindsight being what it is.... I have absolutely no doubt the LEO involved is going through his own personal hell over what happened. I don't believe for a second that when he knocked on that door he had any intention of killing someone. I truly feel for him and the impact it is going to have on him throughout the rest of his life.

 

[Knobgoblin]

I think the reason we are seeing more of this is the growing prevalence of cameras, body, doorbell and cell phones allow us to see it and to see it from more than just the perspective of the survivor

Damned reality!
Those pesky facts have ruined more careers than simple morality ever could.

 

[billdeserthills]

Question, is it reasonable for an officer investigating a domestic disturbance call to believe someone answering the door with a gun in hand is going to shoot them?

The few times I was waiting at the local cop shop I read the plaques about dead cops adorning the waiting room--Most of them died during domestic abuse calls

 

[Barefootdog]

I covered this in a prior post. Let's do a threat assessment. You have credible evidence that there is a violent crime in progress from independent witnesses who point out the location of the threat. The officer is given the specific apartment number and goes to this exact apartment, so from what the officer did, there is no mistake. He believes the potential peril is so great that he risks his life to make contact while his backup is still en route (and as I stated prior, there is incessant complaining when officers wait for backup or don't take action quickly enough).
......EDIT

WADR I have no idea what video clip you were watching....but it couldn't be the one posted at the beginning of this thread.

"You have credible evidence that there is a violent crime in progress from independent witnesses who point out the location of the threat."

Not so.
---The first contact said he had no knowledge of the situation current or past. None...meaning None.
---Then he talks to the KAREN who relates a 2nd hand hearsay tale about what somebody else said. Somebody who wasn't present. Then the KAREN relates what she "heard" 2 weeks prior.

None of that speaks to the situation at hand.

None that establishes credible evidence of anything associated with a "violent crime in progress"...nor was there anyone present who could give a first hand (credible) account of anything associated with the current situation except the officer himself.

So how did that go? The guy gets to the front door and listens....the first opportunity to assess, first hand and in real time, the actual apparent situation....nothing out of the ordinary...crickets...zero evidence of "violent crime in progress".

Won't comment on the rest of your post other than to say it provides self serving justification for your unfortunate summary of the situation you provided in post 66. "Action always beats reaction".

So how did that go? The guy complies and opens the door. Zero evidence of agitation or aggression and says, quietly, "What's up?".

None of that was justification for 5 rounds in the chest.
Were the 5 rounds in the chest "Action" or "Reaction"?

What we witnessed was a murder...period...end of story.
Everything else is BS and justification.

I'm not trying to call you out or say/imply any negative personal statements. But, apparently we are not going to come to a meeting of the minds regarding this situation. Have a good night. Tomorrow will be a better day and hopefully we will still be friends.

 

[Alexx1401]

Question, is it reasonable for an officer investigating a domestic disturbance call to believe someone answering the door with a gun in hand is going to shoot them?

Yes. If a Cop is at the door and you open the door with a gun in hand? You are begging to win a Darwin award. Now will the department of the Cop have to pay out? Maybe. Does that make you any less a moron for yanking the door open gun in hand? No.

 

[Alexx1401]

The few times I was waiting at the local cop shop I read the plaques about dead cops adorning the waiting room--Most of them died during domestic abuse calls

It is by far the worst call they get. I have told the story before of a young guy I helped become a Cop who worked with me. Several months earlier we lost a Cop here to a domestic. Scum was upstairs. He came around the corner of the staircase with rifle and drills first LEO. He ran back upstairs. His partner ran from the house, screaming incoherently into her radio that her partner had been shot. She left him there to bleed out while she screamed. Now he may well have died anyway but, I played that tape for the kid to warn him. That this is very likely to be the kind of person who is going to be backing him up. So be careful.

 

[Koda]

Yes. If a Cop is at the door and you open the door with a gun in hand? You are begging to win a Darwin award. Now will the department of the Cop have to pay out? Maybe. Does that make you any less a moron for yanking the door open gun in hand? No.

I cant think of any situation where answering the door with a drawn pistol in hand would not be considered threatening, this is a lack of armed citizen training.