Unarmed man shot dead in his own home by police.

[Soju 153]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkEE5FTeSg8&feature=related

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/bronx/fatal-shooting-unarmed-bronx-teen-cops-conjures-amadou-diallo-shooting-galvanizes-a-community-article-1.1018075

 

No search warrant. Not armed. Broke into a home. Lied about seeing a gun.

 

Sounds like murder to me?

[Dr.Jimmy Rustler 23]

extremely unprofessional, however there are multiple situations where police dont need a search warrant to enter your home.

 

will definetly be interesting what story comes out

[checko 180]

they are SO screwed. its gonna be pretty tough to convince everyone that he made a threatening gesture on this one.

[Soju 153]

there are multiple situations where police dont need a search warrant to enter your home.

 

 

True. Unless I am mistaken, they is called exigent circumstances.

 

In the criminal procedure context, exigent circumstances means:

An emergency situation requiring swift action to prevent imminent danger to life or serious damage to property, or to forestall the imminent escape of a suspect, or destruction of evidence. There is no ready litmus test for determining whether such circumstances exist, and in each case the extraordinary situation must be measured by the facts known by officials.

[BRaptor 68]

I watched this on the news the other night. This reporting is EXTREMELY one-sided and disgusting.

 

The Exigent Circumstance is called Hot Pursuit. The police had identified this "youth" out on the street as a suspicious person and attempted to approach him. The youth ran, the police followed. The youth ran into his house, the police followed. What happened inside is anyone's guess, but this "kid" was no angel and no stranger to police (at least two prior arrests for marijuana and burglary).

 

There is surveillance video of the guy running from police when they try to approach, and the police chasing him all the way home. The police say he was in the bathroom (flushing drugs) when they found him.

 

Now, no matter what crimes this kid committed, or his criminal history, he didn't deserve to be shot for them. But, if he made some moves or had an object that made an officer believe that he had a weapon and that officer feared for his life, then, sorry, you're gonna get shot. There is much more to this story than was reported.

[TCinJ 7]

Need more information to make a judgement call. There are always two sides to the story.

 

Many times, the youth, which has a troubled past was beginning to "straightening out their life" and go "legit" before they got killed. Not saying the cops were right or wrong, but I guarantee this kid was no angel.

[vladtepes 1,060]

There are always two sides to the story.

 

3 sides...

 

side 1

side 2

then the actual truth....

[Soju 153]

 

 

The Exigent Circumstance is called Hot Pursuit. The police had identified this "youth" out on the street as a suspicious person and attempted to approach him. The youth ran, the police followed.

 

I hope this isn't the other side. Because being a "suspicious" person and not engaging in a conversation with police is not a crime, doesn't allow police to break into your home, and certainly doesn't give them the right to kill you. I sure hope there is another side then this, because that still makes it sound like murder (in addition to a number of other things). Shy of the guys who chased and shot him having seen him murder, assault, or commit another violent crime on someone or themselves, I am having a difficult time envisioning a scenario that justifies what happened. I sure hope there is though.

[BRaptor 68]

I hope this isn't the other side. Because being a "suspicious" person and not engaging in a conversation with police is not a crime, doesn't allow police to break into your home, and certainly doesn't give them the right to kill you. I sure hope there is another side then this, because that still makes it sound like murder (in addition to a number of other things). Shy of the guys who chased and shot him having seen him murder, assault, or commit another violent crime on someone or themselves, I am having a difficult time envisioning a scenario that justifies what happened. I sure hope there is though.

 

It is the other side. Refusing to engage the police in a conversation and running from them like a criminal are two very different things (as SCOTUS has already decided). Please don't mischaracterize this person's behavior.

 

Also, if you had read my post carefully, I NEVER said it was ever sufficient grounds to kill someone. In fact, I said the opposite. Please stop it.

[Dr.Jimmy Rustler 23]

being the only witness is dead the officers can pretty much say whatever they want happened....

 

im going to go ahead and say at most theyl receive short paid suspension and a slap on the wrist. shame this young mans life ended like this though =/

[Adam 6]

Eh, Shouldn't have ran from the cops and he'd still be alive.

 

Clean shoot? I dunno, wasn't there.. I think their issue is going to be the right to entry. That may F'em in the pooper...

[tony357 386]

Eh, Shouldn't have ran from the cops and he'd still be alive.

 

Clean shoot? I dunno, wasn't there.. I think their issue is going to be the right to entry. That may F'em in the pooper...

 

problem is if they harass him every time they see him on the street he probably just runs to get away from them to avoid being harassed..

 

Problem with being a known felon by local PD.

 

Example, Theirs dave on the corner he is good for having some weed, lets check him out... Running...

[BlueLineFish 615]

 

 

problem is if they harass him every time they see him on the street he probably just runs to get away from them to avoid being harassed..

 

Problem with being a known felon by local PD.

 

Example, Theirs dave on the corner he is good for having some weed, lets check him out... Running...

 

Yeah that's it..stereotypical oversimplification of a complex issue

[hd2000fxdl 422]

Example, Theirs dave on the corner he is good for having some weed, lets check him out... Running...

 

Dave's not here...

[njpilot 671]

 

 

There is surveillance video of the guy running from police when they try to approach, and the police chasing him all the way home.

 

Maybe there is other video, but if you watch the video posted here, you see the kid casually walk onto the porch, glance over his shoulder and walk into the house.

 

I don't see him fleeing from the police in this video.

[johnott 5]

The situation definitely needs further investigation.

 

If the story was that the PD followed a suspected drug dealer to the house. Then PD broke down the door and arrested the guy with a stash of drugs, most of us probably wouldn't have a problem with that. But, when an unarmed person is shot by a LEO you automatically call the motive and tactics of the PD into question.

 

My question(s) would be: if you thought that the suspect might have a gun (or you didn't know one way or the other) why would you break down the bathroom door? Bathrooms are typically very small rooms and once through the door you'd be right on top of the guy. Why risk getting shot at point blank range coming through the door? What was so urgent?

 

Also, and (obviously) what indicated that the suspect was armed and that you and/or a fellow officer were in immediate danger?

[Dan 177]

If they thought the kid had a gun, they should have surrounded the house, called in for backup, and handled the situation as if there was an armed and dangerous person barricaded in the house. Why break down the door to go after him, why the urgency?

 

I do agree if the kid was observed by LE comitting, was chased, and ran into the house to hide, they would not need a warrant.

 

Is it me, or is does this kind of stuff seem to be happening more often? After watching so many vids like this online, I have to say I fear LE nearly as much as I fear criminals.

[BRaptor 68]

Maybe there is other video, but if you watch the video posted here, you see the kid casually walk onto the porch, glance over his shoulder and walk into the house.

 

I don't see him fleeing from the police in this video.

 

 

Here, let me Google that for you:

 

http://abclocal.go.c...york&id=8537038

 

 

I absolutely believe that the police's "reason" for the "stop and frisk" is piss-poor. I "adjust my waistband" every now and again, too. Even in public! Does that make me a target for stop and frisk? sheesh.

 

But the minute you start to run when the police approach you, you (legally) enter a different world. Running from the police is sufficient to give rise to probable cause for temporary seizure of and search of the person, exigent circumstances of the person's mobility combined with the likelihood of loss of evidence should the police go apply for a warrant gives you an exemption from the warrant requirement. The fact that he entered his home (which is sacred 4A territory) means they need an exception to enter w/o warrant. Here, probable cause is based on the running, now there is Hot Pursuit exception to the warrant requirement combined with concerns of loss of evidence for exigent circumstance (now "justified" by the fact that the PD found him in the bathroom, apparently flushing drugs....but I wonder why it took him several minutes to flush the drugs...doesn't make sense). Thus, from the looks of this case, it's fairly well-settled law that no 4A violation occurred from the entry.

 

BUT, the NYPD is NOTORIOUS for harrassing, stopping and frisking minorities for seemingly no reason, and making $hit up to justify a stop and frisk. As a department, they have a fantastic reputation as jack-booted thugs. I hate their policies, even if they are "effective." So, his running might be "justified" to avoid harassment. Unfortunately, running from the police is not a recognized way of dealing with police harassment. Especially in NY (state, not just City), pretty much the only way to deal with harassment is a Section 1983 lawsuit.

 

I think the entry is MUCH more easily justified. The shoot, not so much.

 

How would you like it if someone burst in on you taking a pee and shot you? (oversimplification, meant to be funny, please don't take it seriously)

[Soju 153]

How would you like it if someone burst in on you taking a pee and shot you? (oversimplification, meant to be funny, please don't take it seriously)

 

Hopefully I would have shot them first. Based on the video shown, if you didn't know these guys were supposedly cops, it would look like a home invasion and a murder. So had I been in said situation, would have treated it that way.

 

I know you said it was a joke, but often times things said in jest are merely a masking of a harsh truth. To put it simply, a truth put lightly. Is this the case? Not sure. But there is no sense ignoring what we have just because it might not be everything.

 

It is the other side. Refusing to engage the police in a conversation and running from them like a criminal are two very different things (as SCOTUS has already decided). Please don't mischaracterize this person's behavior.

 

Also, if you had read my post carefully, I NEVER said it was ever sufficient grounds to kill someone. In fact, I said the opposite. Please stop it.

 

I'll try not and miss-characterize his character if you agree to do the same, as well as not miss-characterize my post. I am not saying you did so intentionally, I think you just misinterpreted what I meant.

 

I read your post, and never took anything you said to mean it justified the killing of the individual. I was referring to the fact they DID kill him. It was a statement of fact rather than a justification for it. I apologize if it seemed contrary. Often times the intended tone of a post comes off differently to the reader than from the writer.

[Kaiser7 33]

Now, no matter what crimes this kid committed, or his criminal history, he didn't deserve to be shot for them. But, if he made some moves or had an object that made an officer believe that he had a weapon and that officer feared for his life, then, sorry, you're gonna get shot. There is much more to this story than was reported.

 

It was only Marijuana and Burglary, no angel indeed. If he was a rapist, or child molester, then I don't think I'd care as much.

 

Still, even if he was flushing drugs, that's simply destroying evidence, an additional charge, I'm not sure that's something that deserves the proverbial "Cap in the a**."

 

Ironic, we can't carry guns to defend ourselves, but the government can kill us with drones, spy on us with drones, and just plain shoot us in our home without a reason. My neighbor told me that if the police were to ever come to my house, simply because I own a gun, I'd likely be shot on spot. Of course, I don't even speed while driving, so I doubt I'll have to worry about that.

[tony357 386]

Yeah that's it..stereotypical oversimplification of a complex issue

 

Not really, it happens in real life..

 

I use to have a very nice car, would get pulled over in that car every week just because. I even had another police officer i know get one off my back that kept pulling me over to do inspections That dude was pissing me off...

 

Not saying that is the case with this kid but we will see what happens as more info becomes available..

something just does not seem right with this story..

[Ray Ray 3,566]

I watched this on the news the other night. This reporting is EXTREMELY one-sided and disgusting.

 

Yup, and it's all about a lawsuit. Sad

[RS1200XL 4]

Hopefully I would have shot them first. Based on the video shown, if you didn't know these guys were supposedly cops, it would look like a home invasion and a murder. So had I been in said situation, would have treated it that way.

 

 

How would that actually be handled? Let's say you weren't in NJ, you were in a state with a Castle law. Under cover LEO storms your house, and you shoot thinking its a home invasion. Are you legally in the right or the wrong? You are protecting your house, but you just took out a cop....

[BRaptor 68]

I'll try not and miss-characterize his character if you agree to do the same, as well as not miss-characterize my post. I am not saying you did so intentionally, I think you just misinterpreted what I meant.

 

I read your post, and never took anything you said to mean it justified the killing of the individual. I was referring to the fact they DID kill him. It was a statement of fact rather than a justification for it. I apologize if it seemed contrary. Often times the intended tone of a post comes off differently to the reader than from the writer.

 

Sorry about popping off like that. I had just finished responding to something that the anti-gun blogger (in the other thread) had said to me. I was not in the right frame of mind to respond to a friendly post. I misinterpreted your post, too.

 

As for the peeing comment, it was half-jest. I think it's a possible explanation of what he was doing in the bathroom. Kid ran from the cops on the street (ok, that's bad), thought he made it home safe (which is why he walked in his front door, rather than run) and went to take a leak. Of course, it's still tough to get past him hanging out in the bathroom for so long with the police (or someone, if one wishes to believe he didn't know it was the police) trying to kick in the front door.

[BRaptor 68]

How would that actually be handled? Let's say you weren't in NJ, you were in a state with a Castle law. Under cover LEO storms your house, and you shoot thinking its a home invasion. Are you legally in the right or the wrong? You are protecting your house, but you just took out a cop....

 

It's a tough scenario. I'd be willing to bet, even if in a state with a strong castle doctrine, you're gonna get charged, because you shot a cop while he was on duty (they're not regular citizens, they do have a special place in the law, and with that special place comes a special obligation, too. But, they're certainly not above the law, either.).

 

I think it would come down to (assuming you're still alive, of course) convincing a jury that you had no idea they were officers. Things to consider: whether the officers announced on entry, whether they had identifying marks, the amount of light in the room and probably some other factors that I have no idea about. It's a horrible situation to be in, for sure; you likely just killed a man because he made a mistake of not announcing in the heat of the moment. Regardless of criminal repercussions, that would weigh heavily on my conscience.

[GRIZ 3,369]

I'm not going to make a judgement as there is not enough presented to do so.

 

The Diallo shooting was a tragic event. NYPD invited the press up to Rodman's Neck after that shooting and to give them a better understanding of what conditions and time constraints police have to make judgements in shooting situations. The press was run through F.A.T.S. scenarios and they were all shot by bad guys and they shot "criminals" that shouldn't have been shot. This included scenarios that mirrored the events surrounding the Diallo shooting. IIRC the only paper to publish this was the NY Post.