Homeowner Shot by Officer after bad 911 call.

[MechAg94]

This one seems a bit odd to me.  I am seeing conflicting information.  I saw the first link and didn't have a clear picture.  The other two links draw a bit different picture of what happened.  It also sounds like they are still digging up evidence on the 911 caller.  

http://newschannel9.com/news/local/walker-county-man-killed-by-deputy-remembered-as-perfect-golden

The GBI says that one man is dead after a shooting at 147 Meadowview Drive.

Monday morning, they identified the man as 65-year-old Mark Steven Parkinson.

The GBI says they went to the home on Meadowview Drive for a welfare check after a 911 call was made.

They say, in the call, information was provided that a female at the residence was threatening to kill herself and her children. Once on scene, Deputy John Chandler observed Parkinson in the house with a weapon.

The GBI says deputies announced several times that they were from the Walker County Sheriff’s Office.

The GBI says Parkinson pointed the weapon at Deputy Chandler, at which point Deputy Chandler fired shots at Parkinson, killing him.

No officers were injured during this incident. Parkinson will be transported to the GBI Crime Lab for an autopsy.

http://newschannel9.com/news/local/nc9-exclusive-widow-of-man-killed-by-walker-county-deputy-shares-story-of-what-happened

http://www.northwestgeorgianews.com/catoosa_walker_news/attorney-provides-more-details-on-fatal-officer-involved-shooting-in/article_7a8fcca0-f167-11e7-86c5-9f143a4fedb9.html

This quote is from the last link.  It draws a bit different picture of events then the first link.  Multiple witnesses nearby inside that had no idea LEO's were outside.  

Stagg said that, at the time of the incident, five people were inside the house: Mark Parkinson, his wife Diana, Amy and her two children, a 6-year-old and a 16-year-old. Amy and her children were staying with her parents during the divorce proceedings, he said.

Stagg said they were asleep when Parkinson heard their three dogs barking from inside the residence. Parkinson retrieved his firearm for protection, Stagg said. Parkinson and his wife Diana then went into the kitchen area and heard someone banging on the kitchen window, Stagg said.

Within seconds, three shots were fired, with one striking Parkinson's jugular vein (throat area), causing him to bleed to death, the lawyer said.

Diana called for Amy to come downstairs and call 911, he said. Amy, a registered nurse, began to administer aid to her father by applying pressure to his neck, Stagg said.

Stagg said the family waited 3-5 minutes until paramedics and law enforcement arrived, believing that an unknown assailant had shot and killed Parkinson through the kitchen window. Stagg said no one in the family heard the knocking on the door or the three deputies announcing their arrival.

Stagg said Parkinson and Diana did not see law enforcement outside the residence and, to their knowledge, an unknown someone was simply banging on their kitchen window at 3 a.m.

Based on this, do y'all think this shoot is justified?  It appears to be different circumstances than the other ones.

IMO, it goes without saying the 911 caller needs to be thrown under the jail assuming nothing comes up to exonerate that person.  

[MillCreek]

Wow, there but for the grace of God could go I: my wife and I are hard of hearing; we here a noise at night; I grab my go-bag and go out to investigate; and someone shoots me through the patio door or window.  From the LE perspective, they announce, and someone inside points a gun at me and I fire.

[KD5NRH]

Wow, there but for the grace of God could go I: my wife and I are hard of hearing; we here a noise at night; I grab my go-bag and go out to investigate; and someone shoots me through the patio door or window.  From the LE perspective, they announce, and someone inside points a gun at me and I fire.

Funny how no one heard them announce, though, and the family calling 911 immediately pretty well backs that up.  Though really, anyone can yell anything they want; at a minimum they should have had a car with its overheads on.

I'm sure any dash cam footage that might exist will conveniently lack audio.

As for digging up evidence on the caller, how hard is that?  She claims the daughter was texting her, daughter claims she wasn't.  Given that, (which should be on the 911 recording) how hard is it to get a warrant to look at her phone?  If she was telling the truth, why wouldn't she just show them that message and prove her case?  If she so much as stretched the truth in the slightest, she needs to be facing serious prison time.

IMO, we need some heavy duty SWATting laws, to the point that even if nobody gets killed or seriously injured, the caller will regret it for a long time.  If someone does get hurt or killed, it needs to be an enhanced version of what the caller would have gotten had they done it themselves.  As it stands, it almost doesn't make sense to hire a hit man anymore when you can have the local PD do it for free, and face a lot less legal risk.

[MechAg94]

Wow, there but for the grace of God could go I: my wife and I are hard of hearing; we here a noise at night; I grab my go-bag and go out to investigate; and someone shoots me through the patio door or window.  From the LE perspective, they announce, and someone inside points a gun at me and I fire.

On your last, at what point do you say the officer doesn't have a right to be there?  If they didn't have a good enough reason to go in the house immediately, why didn't they knock on the door?  They were essentially conducting a search of the property based on a 911 report.  If the house is quiet when they get there, what justifies that? 

I would really like to see more from the police side, but I doubt that will come out before a trial.  With what is given so far, I can't see how the shot is justified.  I guess I will see.

[Jamisjockey]

MRAPs, full auto M4's, camo, dustcovers that say "you're *expletive deleted*ed" and punisher logos on patches.  That's how this *expletive deleted*it happens.  The police see themselves as an occupying army.

[Hawkmoon]

This whole "knock and announce" thing is a joke. It obviously doesn't account for people who are hard of hearing, or even deaf. It doesn't account for people who may be watching television. It doesn't account for the fact that people may be upstairs, asleep.

I don't know what current practice is, but my town's police department used to have a comparatively civilized approach. There used to be a family half a mile down the road that shared my last name. They were losers and dopers, so I'm happy to say they weren't related -- but they had on more than one occasion allowed creditors to think that my telephone number was their telephone. Apparently they also managed to con the police department the same way.

One evening I was tickling the keys on my keyboard when the telephone rang. I was still answering the phone in those days (now I let the answering machine screen all calls), so I picked up. "This is the police department. Officers are in your driveway and they need to talk to you, so control your dogs."

This was news to me, since I didn't own a dog. And a quick look out the window confirmed that there were no police cars in the driveway. So I then actually had to argue with the idiot dispatcher to convince him that he had called the wrong [Doe] family. But ... at least they didn't just shoot the dogs "out of an abundance of caution."


In the case under discussion, apparently the cop outside shot a homeowner for nothing more than legally holding a firearm inside his own "castle." Not good.

[RoadKingLarry]

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism,

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions

Just a few passages showing a remarkable parallel...

[230RN]

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

It seems to me that the word "unreasonable" means something different nowadays.

Same with "probable cause."

And "supported by oath and affirmation" means by someone reporting something someone else's drug-addled uncle reportedly said, or by an anonymous phone call.

All this, signed off on by compliant judges who rubber-stamp search warrant requests over the phone.*

"And you trust this informant?"

"Sure, Judge, we've used him a dozen times before. : rolleyes :

"and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized" means "any stuff, anybody, any place."

At least it seems that way sometimes.

Oh, I know, bad busts don't happen all the time, but I think the list of "usurpations" of the fundamental civil right spelled out in the Fourth Amendment seems to be getting too long, and "improved reporting" doesn't cut it as an explanation.

Terry

* Excepting, of course, any judges who happen to be on this board.

[KD5NRH]

"and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized" means "any stuff, anybody, any place."

Yeah, I was watching an episode of one of the cop shows, I think it was Southern Justice, where they went to an address on an arrest warrant, and when the homeowner said the person named hadn't been there in months and invited them in to check, they started checking the refrigerator, freezer, kitchen drawers, etc.  Basically everywhere a 5'8" 175lb person (based on the description they had) couldn't possibly fit.  Another one, similar deal, they claimed that because a lidded coffee can was in plain view on a kitchen shelf, they were ok to open it and find the guy's weed stash inside.

[MechAg94]

Yeah, that may be an extension of a question I had from the other thread.  What sort of authority should police have to charge in on someone's property without seeing the probable cause with their own eyes?  IMO, is something is going on that warrants that sort of action, they will see it/hear it when they arrive outside.  If the house is quiet and everyone is asleep, I don't think a 911 call justifies entry or search by itself. 

[230RN]

I think maybe they should bring along the judge who signed off on the warrant and have him do the door-knocking and point entry.

 

Just kidding.  Just kidding.  Ha-ha-ha, me laugh.

I'm not signing this one so nobody will know who posted it.

[Scout26]

This is a bad shoot.   In this instance, a call back to the house from the PD would have been the thing to do.  It also sounds like no inside the house heard anything, until the dogs started barking.   Now, if dogS (meaning more that one) are inside barking their fool heads off, chances are you won't hear anything from the outside.


This difference between these two are one was a reported murder/hostage, whereas this was a domestic dispute (I'd put lots of  money of ex hubby to be one that called in the fake report.                                                                                                             

[tokugawa]

This difference between these two are one was a reported murder/hostage, whereas this was a domestic dispute (I'd put lots of  money of ex hubby to be one that called in the fake report.                                                                                                             

 There should be no difference regarding the due diligence of the cops.  They have no idea, apparently, whether a call is a spoof or not. Therefore the procedure should be the same- and not based solely on how the caller described the situation.
 

[Jamisjockey]

This is a bad shoot.   In this instance, a call back to the house from the PD would have been the thing to do.  It also sounds like no inside the house heard anything, until the dogs started barking.   Now, if dogS (meaning more that one) are inside barking their fool heads off, chances are you won't hear anything from the outside.


This difference between these two are one was a reported murder/hostage, whereas this was a domestic dispute (I'd put lots of  money of ex hubby to be one that called in the fake report.                                                                                                             

No matter.  The only thing the modern police force is taught is that the only important thing is that they go home at the end of their shift.  What bodies lie in their wake isn't important.

[Pb]

Does anyone believe a cop will be punished for this? 

[MechAg94]

Does anyone believe a cop will be punished for this? 

I don't know how it normally works in Georgia.  At least is appears a separate department is investigating.  Judging by what we usually see, not likely.  However, this one is hard to defend unless the police have evidence disputing the family's description of events. 

[Scout26]

No matter.  The only thing the modern police force is taught is that the only important thing is that they go home at the end of their shift.  What bodies lie in their wake isn't important.

So this is based upon your extensive law enforcement experience ??

There should be no difference regarding the due diligence of the cops.  They have no idea, apparently, whether a call is a spoof or not. Therefore the procedure should be the same- and not based solely on how the caller described the situation.
 

The difference between the two is one is a reported active shooter, the other is a domestic.    The ways you approach those two situations are different.  Unless you want the cops to go in hard and fast with SWAT on every domestic call, instead of trying to peacefully resolve things ??   Is that what you REALLY want ??

[Hawkmoon]

So this is based upon your extensive law enforcement experience ??

More likely based on the number of comments that say exactly that on police forums.

The difference between the two is one is a reported active shooter, the other is a domestic.    The ways you approach those two situations are different.  Unless you want the cops to go in hard and fast with SWAT on every domestic call, instead of trying to peacefully resolve things ??   Is that what you REALLY want ??

But they basically did go in with SWAT -- or nearly so. They didn't send one or two officers to knock on the door like civilized people -- they set up a perimeter, with guns drawn and aimed, and then started with the shouted commands, [confusing] bright lights, and then they act all shocked and surprised when they got a predictable result.

[Scout26]

That's why this is bad shoot.   

[Hawkmoon]

The domestic was (IMHO) a bad shoot because the cop wasn't at the front door, ringing the bell or knocking, and the cop didn't have dispatch try to call the house to tell the occupants to open the door and let the nice officers in. Instead, he was skulking around the outside of the house like a robber or home invader. The homeowner was in his "castle," where he has every right to be armed and prepared to defend himself. ESPECIALLY when there's an unknown person or persons skulking around outside.

[Jamisjockey]

So this is based upon your extensive law enforcement experience ??
The difference between the two is one is a reported active shooter, the other is a domestic.    The ways you approach those two situations are different.  Unless you want the cops to go in hard and fast with SWAT on every domestic call, instead of trying to peacefully resolve things ??   Is that what you REALLY want ??

Great way to adhom the discussion.

Getting home at the end of the shift is the mantra for police far and wide around this country.  Proof is in the pudding of how hostile they are in general to the public.  It's all over their literature, their sayings, and their forums.  They no longer view themselves as peace officers, but as an occupying army in hostile territory.

[cordex]

Great way to adhom the discussion.

Just to be clear, you take a former military cop's questioning the basis of your wild, emotional claim that cops don't care about killing people as an ad  hominem attack?  That about right?

Getting home at the end of the shift is the mantra for police far and wide around this country.

O.  M.  G.  Those jerks don't want to die?  They actually want to go home alive and get in bed with their wives and see their kids grow up?  Can you even imagine?  What nerve!  I'm certainly glad no non-cop has ever wanted to survive.  And we - as non-cop gunowners - would never, ever, ever repeat phrases like "it's better to be judged by twelve than carried by six" to justify what we do for our own survival.

[Jamisjockey]

Just to be clear, you take a former military cop's questioning the basis of your wild, emotional claim that cops don't care about killing people as an ad  hominem attack?  That about right?

No, I took the assertion that because I don't have leo experience that my opinion on police mindset is invalid as an adhom.

I'll leave this here.



Yes, those are thin blue line punisher skulls on official police vehicles.

[cordex]

No, I took the assertion that because I don't have leo experience that my opinion on police mindset is invalid as an adhom.

You said: "The only thing the modern police force is taught is that the only important thing is that they go home at the end of their shift.  What bodies lie in their wake isn't important." 
That claim is - at best - ignorant and wrong from start to finish, whatever your experience or lack thereof.  Yelling "adhom!" doesn't change that.  It was frankly generous of Scout to attribute the wrongness and ridiculousness of your claim to ignorance borne through lack of relevant experience.

I'll leave this here.Yes, those are thin blue line punisher skulls on official police vehicles.

So you are extrapolating your judgement from a tiny KY town's poor taste in livery?  A police chief who sees a cool logo without knowing the full comic backstory choosing to display a Punisher logo on a police car is all the proof you need that all cops want to emulate the Punisher and just want to murder people?  Oooookay.  Let's follow this brilliant analysis for a minute.


All spandex-wearing bicyclists want to murder people!

All firefighters want to murder people!

All AR-15 owners want to murder people!

All Spikes Tactical owners want to murder people!

All Marines want to murder people!

I could go on.

The Punisher logo has been used by tons of people for all kinds of causes.  It's on 1911 grips, Glock striker covers, t-shirts, rifle magazines, coffee mugs, stickers - all over the place.  It's associated with sports teams, regular Joe shooters, police, military, firefighters, working dogs, hunters - basically anything competitive, violent, or physical.   It's a cool looking, mildly edgy logo, and - this may come as a shock to you - not everyone who displays it sees their actual role in society as an unsanctioned executioner.

[dogmush]

All Marines want to murder people!

Well........That one is more accurate then the others.....


Vigilante emblems on cop cars is a little more troubling then vigilante emblems on bike clothes.  There's also the very widespread 1* movement among LEO.