tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7479868.post116532668964169100..comments2024-02-11T10:15:24.707+00:00Comments on Cryptic Subterranean: Raid KillingJay.Machttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04806932376478242650noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7479868.post-1165454942537553872006-12-07T01:29:00.000+00:002006-12-07T01:29:00.000+00:00The War on Guns: Strickland Shot Through Door<A HREF="http://waronguns.blogspot.com/2006/12/strickland-shot-through-door.html" REL="nofollow">The War on Guns: Strickland Shot Through Door</A>David Codreahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13836716551269849012noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7479868.post-1165453490709369462006-12-07T01:04:00.000+00:002006-12-07T01:04:00.000+00:00"if you are going to confront him in his home, you..."if you are going to confront him in his home, you don't want him grabbing a weapon while your standing out on the porch knocking at the door."<BR/><BR/>And therein lies the problem with the police tactic- assuming that a petty thief is going to suddenly alter his MO and begin shooting cops over a couple of stolen Playstations really permits the police to use dynamic entry for just about any crime they can think of. I mean, that guy who didn't pay his parking tickets, or whatever, he could have shot a cop at the door too; perhaps we need to issue a blanket dynamic entry permit for cops any time they need to approach anyone's house. I mean, there's no telling who might have a gun and who might be prepared to use it.<BR/><BR/>Did they really, really think that they couldn't just stand and wait for him to answer the door? Where was he going to go- he's the college attending son of a prominent lawyer. Was he going to flee the country and deprive them of an arrest? Was he going to suddenly change from using a sap to guns in order to murder police officers inquiring about his alleged involvement in a crime? Stop me if I'm wrong, but aren't American citizens supposed to be considered innocent until proven guilty? <BR/><BR/>The way the police acted here he was not only guilty of this crime but also a potential cop killer too. Their "dynamic entry" tactics are what caused the guy's death; had they chosen a less confrontational route to follow they would not have placed themselves in a situation where they had to shoot someone because they thought he had something in his hand. Suppose he didn't answer the door because he was on the phone, suppose he was on his way, phone still in hand when the cops came bursting in- now imagine that he's not a petty thief but a regular citizen accused of any number of non-gun crimes; are the police still justified in bursting into his home just because he didn't answer the door? Is it okay that they shot an unarmed person because they were scared of getting hurt and thus took extreme steps to protect themselves; steps that weren't even necessary? <BR/><BR/>I have no sympathy for criminals but this is a matter of the general attitude of US police to the citizenry they are supposed to serve and protect; it's an "us or them" mindset. Campus cops could easily have handled this situation, even if it did involve a sap, or stick or whatever; instead they took along a "special police unit" and barged into his home when the door wasn't answered fast enough for them. Sure, he was a thief; but he could just as easily have been any citizen accused of any crime. The fact of the matter is that the police take it for granted that they can use violent tactics like this when they think it's appropriate- and the bar for appropriate seems to be lowered as each day passes.<BR/><BR/>Imagine you get into a brawl with someone - not your fault of course- and he goes to the cops clutching his bruised face; "I could have been killed," says he. The cops go to arrest you and when you don't make it to the door in time they burst into your home unannounced and gun you down because you have a phone, a book or a butter knife in your hand.<BR/><BR/>"Heck," says the lead cop. "If only he'd just answered the door a bit faster, my SWAT team wouldn't have had to gun him down like that."<BR/><BR/>A few days pass and it's being discussed on the blogs. "But he was violent," they say. "He attacked that poor man without any provocation <I>[of course we only have the "victim's" word for that- you've been killed in a hail of police bullets]</I>- of course the police were justified in a dynamic entry. Don't you know he used to read gun blogs! Why, those poor police officers could have been gunned down like dogs if they'd stood around on his front step just waiting. The moral of the story, don't start fights or you could end up on a slab."<BR/><BR/>The scary thing is, right now it doesn't seem so far fetched.Jay.Machttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04806932376478242650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7479868.post-1165443843112347932006-12-06T22:24:00.000+00:002006-12-06T22:24:00.000+00:00I believe you are being a bit disingenuous. The r...I believe you are being a bit disingenuous. The report stated that he used a sap, not his fists, and broke the guy's jaw. He could have just as easily killed the guy if he had hit him in the wrong place. So,to recap, this dead kid has a history of using drugs, committing acts violence with weapons.<BR/><BR/>Now, I don't think a dynamic entry was the way to go, he could have just been picked up off the street with a lot less trouble, but if you are going to confront him in his home, you don't want him grabbing a weapon while your standing out on the porch knocking at the door. <BR/><BR/>The moral of the story is "Don't rob people, even if the guy you rob doesn't shoot you, you may still end up on a slab."<BR/><BR/>BrassAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com