first our dogs and now our children

[Leon Brooks]

although this has nothing to do with the mmj movement it still has everything to do with the way we allow our leo to enter our homes.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/05/16/michigan.police.child/index.html?eref=igoogle_cnn

security gates on windows and doors with steel walls is more for police nowadays then criminals.

so sad and tragic.

 

[NiteTiger]

That's so tragic

 

[ArcticBlast]

they'll end up blaming this on the suspect hiding out in the house

ArcticBlast

 

[Leon Brooks]

well of course they will but its not like it was a drug raid in which there would be time to flush shit. they should of surrounded the place and said comeout.

let the women and children leave the place and then do what ever they had to do the get the suspect out.

 

[ArcticBlast]

police are so crazy with all their weapons lately... "first, let's flashbang them, then let's grapple the middle aged woman watching tv, use handgun if necessary.." like what the fuck!? if they had intelligence like they said they did, then they would have known that 3 of the 4 or 5 occupants were completely harmless...

shit drives me crazy! this is the ONLY time they could have executed this warrant? really? REALLY??

ArcticBlast

 

[Donald Mallard]

Yep like one of the comments said , if they had the intelligence to find out about the fugitive then what couldnt they find out there was a 7 yr old kid in the house also and act approprietly ...

 

[Leon Brooks]

well hell, it was just a search warrant that they served while WAITING for the murder warrant to go through.

and to anyone who even thinks for a milisec that im defending the murder suspect in anyway GO FUCK YOURSELF. if he is convicted i hope they put him down right then in there.

this is about police tactics and procedure.

 

[ArcticBlast]

hey bro, i'm with you all the way

ArcticBlast

 

[NiteTiger]

Wait, so this is the cops fault?

So, according to Leon, the cops should have given him hostages. According to Arctic, they're supposed to believe that people with an accused murderer in their home are harmless? On what basis?

Not to mention she obviously wasn't harmless, if she's fighting the police to the point of a weapon discharge.

So yeah, I do blame the murder suspect for hiding behind others, especially getting a kid involved.

 

[Leon Brooks]

are you fucking kidding me nitetiger.

i dont even know where to start with you.

how the fuck do they know if he has killed someone or not. he could have come home like it was another day.

the suspect didnt kill a family member so why would he hold them hostage.if the middle aged woman was able to fend off ARMED swat officers i think she would have been fine with the one suspect in her house had something went down.

you come up with more shit like that and im going to see how well the ignore system works.

 

[Leon Brooks]

asnd since they arent releasing the suspects name yet i can only assume he is also a minor such as the victim was. note that i said i assume.

 

[NiteTiger]

the 34-year-old suspect in Blake's death was found and arrested at the home.

People take their OWN kids hostage in situations like that. You have to assume the worst.

And yeah, if the cop would have just shot her on sight, I guess we could compare how she would have fared against a murder suspect. I'm sure he wouldn't have just gunned her down with no warning if he decided to. Oh wait, that's exactly what his pattern has been!

Lots of assumptions, little thought.

If they had surrounded the house, and he had taken the little girl hostage, and hurt her, what then? That'd be their fault too, right?

It's also amusing that you figure because they knew where he was that they knew who was with him. It's real easy for a tipster to say 'I saw him go in that house'.

 

[ArcticBlast]

how would the other occupants know he did anything? do you think that after he (supposedly) shot down this kid, that he came home for dinner and casually brought it up in conversation?

"how was your day, son?"
"oh you know, same ol' same ol', drive-by murder of some kid"
"ohh, nice to hear, son"
"yeah, so if the cops come, be sure to expect flashbang grenades and assault rifles!"

i dont buy it. if they had ALL this on the guy, they'd have people watching the house. they'd know the schedules. they'd wait for a less confusing encounter (if they cared). wait another 12 hours for the little girl to go to school, SOMETHING!

but you're right, nitetiger, this dude brought it on himself...he shouldn't have done anything like this around kids nobody was right.

ArcticBlast

 

[NiteTiger]

how would the other occupants know he did anything? do you think that after he (supposedly) shot down this kid, that he came home for dinner and casually brought it up in conversation?

"how was your day, son?"
"oh you know, same ol' same ol', drive-by murder of some kid"
"ohh, nice to hear, son"
"yeah, so if the cops come, be sure to expect flashbang grenades and assault rifles!"

i dont buy it. if they had ALL this on the guy, they'd have people watching the house. they'd know the schedules. they'd wait for a less confusing encounter (if they cared). wait another 12 hours for the little girl to go to school, SOMETHING!

but you're right, nitetiger, this dude brought it on himself...he shouldn't have done anything like this around kids nobody was right.

ArcticBlast

Again, you're assuming an awful lot. The guy murdered a guy in front of at least one witness. So they know who. They get a tip where he's at, they know where.

Vast surveillance teams are a Hollywood myth.

That's all they need. Why would they delay any longer? They have a guy who has been identified as gunning down a man in a public place. You now know his location. Why would they do anything else but get him in custody as quickly as possible?

Would you want to be responsible for leaving him on the street a minute longer than necessary? If he had killed someone else while they were getting all this mythical surveillance set up, that'd be okay with you?

Let's turn it around. How would you have done it? You have a cold-blooded murder loose in your neighborhood. You know where he is. What do you do?

But we can agree, as you said, nothing about this situation is right

 

[Leon Brooks]

i apologize with the age overlook. i must have read that and thought of the not releasing the name part. sry.

look man there alot of assumptions that could be made, ones i would make against the cops and ones you would make for the cops, but in the end that little girl was shot by a "trained professional" paid for by our tax dollars. how can you defend that. thats an accident that just shouldnt happen. and they never said it was an accident, they said

quote
"Upon entering the home, the officer encountered a 46-year-old female inside the front room, Godbee said. "Exactly what happened next is a matter still under investigation, but it appears the officer and the woman had some level of physical contact.

"At about this time, the officer's weapon discharged one round which, tragically, struck 7-year-old Aiyana Stanley Jones in the neck/head area."
end quote

cops are pretty sure to word them selves correctly. not adding by accident leads to alot of assumptions. such as

did the lady still confused by the flashbang make physical contact because she had no idea what the fuck was going on and was trying to protect the child from a bunch of armed and masked men yelling shit. or

did the trained leo aim for the lady and hit the little girl?

maybe he shot it just to scare her but didnt know there was a liitle girl where he was pointing. unsafe discharge of a weapon i would think.

im sure there are a few you can think of they could help out the cops case for shooting that little girl but i cant.

 

[NiteTiger]

i apologize with the age overlook. i must have read that and thought of the not releasing the name part. sry.

look man there alot of assumptions that could be made, ones i would make against the cops and ones you would make for the cops, but in the end that little girl was shot by a "trained professional" paid for by our tax dollars. how can you defend that. thats an accident that just shouldnt happen. and they never said it was an accident, they said

quote
"Upon entering the home, the officer encountered a 46-year-old female inside the front room, Godbee said. "Exactly what happened next is a matter still under investigation, but it appears the officer and the woman had some level of physical contact.

"At about this time, the officer's weapon discharged one round which, tragically, struck 7-year-old Aiyana Stanley Jones in the neck/head area."
end quote

cops are pretty sure to word them selves correctly. not adding by accident leads to alot of assumptions. such as

did the lady still confused by the flashbang make physical contact because she had no idea what the fuck was going on and was trying to protect the child from a bunch of armed and masked men yelling shit. or

did the trained leo aim for the lady and hit the little girl?

maybe he shot it just to scare her but didnt know there was a liitle girl where he was pointing. unsafe discharge of a weapon i would think.

im sure there are a few you can think of they could help out the cops case for shooting that little girl but i cant.

See, now we can agree. Laying the entire situation at the cops feet is wrong though.

I personally think your point about the trained professionals is excellent. In fact, I think it's what this investigation is going to hinge on.

From what the story reported, it sounds to me like the cop in the confrontation with the lady violated a very basic safety rule. You do NOT put your finger inside the trigger guard until you shoot. Specifically so that you don't have a discharge from falls or impacts.

This guy had his finger in the trigger, so when chick got into it with him, bang, accidental discharge.

He fucked up, is the most likely scenario. You'll probably see a career end over this, if he doesn't blow his brains out first. Happens to a lot of first responders who are involved with a child's preventable death.

I'm interested in hearing more about the where the girl was in the house. If she wasn't visible to the officer, if she was in an adjacent room or something, I think that changes things somewhat.

Now, if he intentionally shot at the woman with a child in the room, that's a whole different story.

I still feel that this murder suspect bears the weight of this, though. You gonna go thug it up and invite violence to yourself, go for it. Just don't drag anyone else into it, especially kids.

 

[Leon Brooks]

i really hope he doesnt blow his brains out. that would be to easy.

i want to see jail time, life. served in federal pound me in the ass prison, where all the inmates know he was a cop and he is the one who shot that little girl.

 

[Prof Sublime]

Wow thats sad, 7 year old girl, poor family.

 

[boroboro]

Again, you're assuming an awful lot. The guy murdered a guy in front of at least one witness. So they know who. They get a tip where he's at, they know where.

Vast surveillance teams are a Hollywood myth.

That's all they need. Why would they delay any longer? ... snip...

Why delay any longer? I think the story speaks for itself.

It seems like this was the situation before the police raided:

• Bad dude (probably) inside.
• Unknown amount of other people inside.
• Some / most / maybe all people asleep and probably not going anywhere too soon.
• OK, probably guns and dangerous stuff in the house, but probably no fingers on triggers at the moment.

What must it have been like seconds after the police raided:

• Lots of loaded, chambered guns with the safety off. Cops and maybe the Bad Dudes also.
• A few seconds of chaos that may never be sorted out.
• Dead People.

I don't see how there is any other conclusion than that the police caused the situation that resulted in the girl's death. The police made the immediate situation more dangerous, not less dangerous. Maybe you can argue for this militaristic, guilty-until-proven-innocent-or-dead style of law enforcement if it only involves cops and the suspect. Please don't support this, though, if there are innocent people in the house. Or within firing range.

Me? I vote for delay.

 

[NiteTiger]

Why delay any longer? I think the story speaks for itself.

It seems like this was the situation before the police raided:

• Bad dude (probably) inside.
• Unknown amount of other people inside.
• Some / most / maybe all people asleep and probably not going anywhere too soon.
• OK, probably guns and dangerous stuff in the house, but probably no fingers on triggers at the moment.

What must it have been like seconds after the police raided:

• Lots of loaded, chambered guns with the safety off. Cops and maybe the Bad Dudes also.
• A few seconds of chaos that may never be sorted out.
• Dead People.

Lots and lots of assumptions there. If you're wrong on any of them, innocent people have a higher risk of dying.

Unknown amount of other people inside.

And how does that question get answered without going in? So, cops should have some sort of ESP before they go in?

Some / most / maybe all people asleep and probably not going anywhere too soon.

Exactly why you go then. Guards are down, people may be asleep, and he's in custody and the situation is secured before anyone is alert and awake enough to respond.

Should wait for everyone to be awake and alert so the chances of resistance are higher? How does that make sense?

And if that assumption is wrong, then he does go somewhere and you've got a murder suspect on the loose, when you could have taken him off the street.

How do you feel when your assumption is wrong and the suspect escapes and kills another kid?

OK, probably guns and dangerous stuff in the house, but probably no fingers on triggers at the moment.

And you base this deadly assumption on what, again? You've got a guy running from a murder charge who just gunned down a 17 year old. And your assumption is he is just chilling out?

I don't see how there is any other conclusion than that the police caused the situation that resulted in the girl's death.

Because they wouldn't have been there if the guy who brazenly gunned down a 17 year old kid wasn't there? Because if the woman hadn't fought with the police, the round wouldn't have been fired?

The police made the immediate situation more dangerous, not less dangerous.

So, murderer loose is less dangerous than police arresting him? Once again, you're assuming they knew others were there. And you're assuming the other adults in the house are innocent, which is, based on what happened, not at all clear.

Maybe you can argue for this militaristic, guilty-until-proven-innocent-or-dead style of law enforcement if it only involves cops and the suspect.

Guilty until proven innocent? So, they shouldn't arrest anyone until after a trial? Witnesses tell them 'That guy gunned down someone', and they shouldn't take him into custody? What?

Please don't support this, though, if there are innocent people in the house. Or within firing range.

You assume they knew, again.

Me? I vote for delay.

And if you delay and someone else dies? That's okay? That would be the cops fault, too.

Assumptions are bad, especially when you wish for the worst on the assumptions you make.

Thing is, around here, the assumption is the cops did wrong. Always. No matter what unfounded assumptions it requires for them to be wrong, they'll be made. On that basis, the judgment is made, and sentences of death by torture are proclaimed proudly.

Cops do wrong, and those deserve the punishment they get. You haven't heard a peep out of me in the 'cops kill dog' thread. Because the cops were wrong, and deserve scorn, disgust, and punishment.

But just because a cop does it, doesn't mean it's wrong.

If we were talking about anybody else but a cop, the responses in this thread would be totally different.

God forbid you make your assumptions and someone else is killed. Because then it WOULD be your fault.