White cop shoots 74 year old black vet during welfare check

Guns are actually regulated though. There are many thousands of people that cannot legally own them because they are seen to be dangerous, numerous guns are banned because they are seen as being too dangerous for the street. Again, I'm not trying to say that everyone should be able to go out and buy a ma deuce to mount on their house or car, I'm just saying that banning all guns simply because they are potentially dangerous would be like banning all cars because they are potentially dangerous. Since guns exist, there will be gun deaths, since cars exist, there will be automotive deaths. It's just how it is, it's simply the price one pays for living in the modern world.

I understand your point, and again, my libertarian roots agree with you in principle but my practical side realizes that you simply can't hold a gun on a cop and refuse to lower your weapon without getting shot. That's just how the world has to work. Also, when it comes to cops heading in to those houses uninvited, how else would we find dead bodies of those who have no close family or friends with keys to the house?

I'm not going to get back into the Trayvon nonsense other than to say that when you attack people, you run the risk of them killing you....a pretty good reason not to be an idiot who swings on people irresponsibly. Same goes for pulling a gun on people, if you pick up a gun, you better be prepared to use it, and you better be prepared to put it away in a hurry if circumstances dictate that. You take a huge chance when you attack someone or pull a gun out, you are potentially risking your life in either scenario and people need to know that.

 

I think (hope) almost everyone would agree with general blanket statements like this, but they don't really encapsulate reality, which is typically much more complex.

For this particular case it only makes sense if you word it like:

I don't want to live in a country where policeman can respond to welfare checks from concerned family members to ensure their loved isn't in need of emergency medical attention, and then have a huge misunderstanding arise that leads to a volatile situation where two parties are pointing guns at each other.

 

What do you do for a living, or do you just live off the dole?

I was a federal prosecutor for years, including representing the state against cops.

If you point a gun at an officer and then are told to put your gun down and don't.... yeah that is stupid.

You are stupid.

I really thought about having a constructive dialogue but you are just too stupid.

 

Not at all. I'm saying it's the police's job to assess a situation and do everything possible to NOT escalate it. The police knew they were breaking into a person's home in middle of the night. They knew the person was old and recovering from surgery. They knew he might not be of right mind based on the fact that they were asked to do a welfare check on him. They know we live in a culture where people defend their homes with guns. They also know they weren't entering a home of a suspect of a crime or someone who they have reason to expect might want to harm them.

Given all this, when the cop enters the home and sees a gun pointed at him, this should not be a huge surprise. Raising a weapon back at him is only going to escalate the situation and increase the likelihood that someone fires a shot. The man would have been fully justified in shooting the cop in self-defense at that point. He can't be sure who's entered his house and doesn't necessarily have time to rationally evaluate the situation. He might not even be fully awake or lucid. If it was an intruder, and he raises a weapon at you, it would be kind of stupid to lower your own weapon.

This whole shoot-first, ask-questions-later mentality that rules police work these days is problematic. That's not how it has always been, so the idea that it's just how everyone is trained is silly. Cops should first and foremost be trying to de-escalate situations, especially when the person they are interacting with is not even suspected of doing anything bad.

Either get rid of the gun culture where people are told they can and should defend themselves, or get rid of the police culture that suggests they shoot anyone they deem a threat for whatever reason. When you combine the two, the system is dysfunctional.

 

What I do for a living is irrelevant to this conversation... And what you use to do for a living is irrelevant as well. You're just another lawyer. So what.

But we're not talking about me. We're talking about an old man who was defending himself in his home late night against intruders who broke in through the back door.

Interesting a person talks about constructive dialogue but has to result to insults and name calling.... The irony.

'I reject your honor. That's stupid'... I can tell you're a top notch lawyer

 

I never asked what you did for a living. And you are just another lawyer. What I insulted was your childish way of engaging.

And no... Unless you were/are a police officer, an ICE agent, etc being a lawyer is not relevant to this conversation.

 

I'm a financial analyst aka excel junkie

fk all u h8ers

 

Saying a police officer had a gun pointed at him after he instructed the victim to put the gun down are a set of facts in a vacuum. So you have a potential situation where a 74 year old man who doesn't move well, is hard of hearing, and has poor eyesight sees someone bust a door in during the middle of the night and that cop more than likely has a flashlight pointed at the victim rendering the victim unable to see that the intruder is a cop. Then the cop, knowing this is a wellfare check of a man not accused of any crime, blows away the old man rather than backing out of the house and trying to make contact with the man. Your facts ignore quite a hell of a lot of possibilities in this case.

 

I presented both sides actually... I pointed out everything you said about the 74 year old man. However, the one possibly facing charges is the officer, so the situation and circumstances upon which he acted are entirely relevant.

 

I wouldn't call your comments presenting both sides. You just kind of happen to leave out the potential circumstances from the victim's point of view while railing on and on about how you shouldn't point a gun at a cop even though that cop is breaking into your house in the middle of the night and you're 74 years old.

This all really speaks to the larger issue that a lot of police procedure and police training is poor. The mix is of those variables is just asking for these kinds of confrontations. Police seem to be all about the intent of putting you down physically or with their firearms rather than approaching a situation with the intent to de-escalate and have a safe resolution for everyone.

 

How would you have trained them differently? Would you have taught them that if you see someone holding a gun on you that you should run away? To put your gun down and talk it out and be friends?

Have you considered that what might have worked in this instance would lead to officers getting killed in many others? I honestly hope you are never in a situation where someone is holding a gun on you because with your naive attitude, I don't think it would end well.

 

Have you considered that maybe these cops could've use little things like common sense and context? Or do you believe that cops are too stupid and fueled by emotion to do this? Welfare checks should not be handled the same as responding to a call of a crime taking place.

 

I would have trained him to be sensitive to the fact that he just broke into a 74 year old man's home in the middle of the night in an area where firearm ownership is common. I would train him to examine the context of the situation to the point that he understood he was there for a welfare check on the old man, not to confront the man with a firearm. In that particular instance, the officer should have backed away and called in the situation to the family so that they would know the old man was alive and well, but armed.

Teaching police officers to examine context in their interaction with the public would get cops killed?

You're generalizing entirely too much when the topic at hand is that an officer broke into a house and then shot the occupant who was within his rights to be armed. What I really wish is that there was a body camera on the officer so that we could be more certain of the circumstances that unfolded on the evening in question.

 

You raise a lot of good points and I agree that we need to know more but at the same time as other posters have noted this does look like this could've been prevented with both better training and some common sense including some forethought on the part of the officer(s).

A big question I have is were any of the old guys relatives with the police when they did the welfare check. It seems to me that a lot of this could've been avoided if that had someone that the Allen knew with them so they had that person announce he was with there with LE to do a welfare check.

What I'm also not clear is was Allen sitting in clear site of the backdoor so the LE saw him as soon as the door was opened or did they enter the house and see him sometime later further in the house. If he was further in the house it seems like they could've announced themselves again and waited to hear a response back from Allen before proceeding. If Allen had said he had a gun and was prepared to shoot they could've talked him down gradually before confronting him.

Barring those things they could've gotten more info from Allen's relatives such as is he armed, had he had experiences with break ins before that might cause him to be jumpy, what type of surgery he had and what medications he might be on. Those might've prepared the LE for the possibility that he might be armed and rethink their strategy along with taking over precautions.

 

I've been in a situation sort of like this dealing with someone who was having a medical issue that caused them to behave erratically and potentially threatening. A friend of mine was going hypoglycemic at an airport and that causes erratic and sometimes violent behavior. He had barricaded himself in bathroom stall and was refusing to come out when the EMT's and the airport security were there. Since we had to get them out there they had me go with them and help them push the stall door in to get him. They felt that having me there would help to calm him whereas a lot of strangers might compel him to fight even more. We were able to get him out without too much struggle and I think having me there helped to calm so he didn't get hurt or the EMT's and security get hurt.

 

What conversation would we be having if the old man had been the quicker to shoot and it was a dead cop instead of a dead homeowner? Would it still be an unfortunate accident? An unavoidable tragedy? I think we'd instead be talking about training, protocol, and support. When a policeman puts himself into a him-or-me situation and loses, it easy to start the conversation of how we can make sure these things don't happen again. If the cop wins though, it's merely unfortunate.

 

Yeah... it would be an unfortunate accident and I don't think it would even be much of a discussion. However, if there were multiple officers present, it is unlikely that the man would be alive even if he were the quicker shot.

 

we'd be having this conversation:

http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=258719

In the end, no charges were laid.

and I think that the consensus in that discussion was that the police procedures were reckless and wrong. Same as it ever was.

 

I don't necessarily disagree with this, and a lot of it rests on what we do not know. For example, someone asked why they were doing a welfare check at 11:30 at night. At first blush that is a valid question, until you consider that had he been sick or passed away, we would have questions about why the police waiting until morning.

I suppose SWAT could have been used, with large shields, etc. I just question whether there are the resources for it.

I agree it would be wonderful if a relative or relatives were present. I do not know how practical that is, and I don't know if the relatives would have shown up or if the dispatch even asked them to stay.

What if a relative is unavailable or refused to stay?

It is a very complicated issue. My guess is that there are no changes made and it is written off as a fluke.