Police execute homeowner and don't apologise

[mhaze]

Facing the door, the shooter was to the far left. One of the rounds hit the left hand door frame. Five bullets through the door, one of the neighbors said seven or eight were fired. Another said four. Oh - no peephole on that door! Call the ADA inspectors, we got a violation here!



Notice casings on the grass to the right of door. Where was the shooter? Behind the tree to the left of the door is the only possible location. Concealed from sight of someone opening the door. So he likely did have his gun out, perhaps pointed half down.



Man, they shure did replace that door fast? Where dat door go? They scurried of with it with those five holes mighty quick.



Why, we jes paint it up real nice. Morning after dat shooting, no one knows what come down here.

Other facts.

News reporters

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqMMYEn19ZE
Police report: http://www.lakecountygov.info/policereports.pdf
27 minute recording of dispatch and officers on scene: http://www.lakecountygov.info/police-audio.mp3

[Andrew Wiggin]

Originally Posted by mhaze

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting...93006a5f48.png

Facing the door, the shooter was to the far left. One of the rounds hit the left hand door frame. Five bullets through the door, one of the neighbors said seven or eight were fired. Another said four. Oh - no peephole on that door! Call the ADA inspectors, we got a violation here!

We've got more than a violation, we've got some contenders for the million dollars. We've got psychic policemen who can see through doors. The rods they've got through the bulletholes, including the one through the doorframe hole, are all parallel when the door is closed. Someone stood to the left of that door on the ground next to the porch and fired through it while it was closed. Someone said they did so because they could see that the guy behind it had a gun and was pointing it at them. Someone is either lying or can see what's in your hand through a closed door.

They carted off the door, and IIRC from up-thread they carted off the carpet behind it too. I think they shot this guy through the door, then opened it. The blood spatter would all be on the wrong side of the door, and there certainly isn't any on the outside, as you might expect if someone had opened it, then been shot while standing next to it. The bullet holes in the door tell the wrong story, and the carpet (speculatively) might show that he fell down, then took bullets six, seven, and eight while lying there.

My personal opinion on how this played out: One cop steps up on the porch and pounds on the door but doesn't identify himself. The other cop stands to the left of the porch. Guy comes to the door and shouts 'Who is it?. What do you want? It's *********** three AM. Go away!' or something of the sort. Cop keeps pounding on the door, but still doesn't identify himself, shouts 'Open the door'. Guy shouts back 'Go away. I've got a gun.' Maybe at this point he starts to open the door, or maybe he jiggles the knob to make sure the door is locked and they just THINK he's opening the door. Cop at the door backs away, but the other cop by the porch flinches and opens fire. Once they realize what's happened, they kick in the door, finish the job, figure out a story, then the cleanup begins.

[marplots]

In that photo with the rods (I assume tracking bullet paths), don't they all swing as you open the door? Wouldn't that give you an entire arc of possible source locations, depending on how wide the door was opened? Seems like you'd have to marry up the door with any bullet holes inside to sort it out.

[Andrew Wiggin]

Originally Posted by marplots

In that photo with the rods (I assume tracking bullet paths), don't they all swing as you open the door? Wouldn't that give you an entire arc of possible source locations, depending on how wide the door was opened? Seems like you'd have to marry up the door with any bullet holes inside to sort it out.

The holes in the door might swing, but the hole in the door frame won't. All the other rods are parallel with that one, and appear to indicate a shooting point to the left of the door.

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by Andrew Wiggin

The holes in the door might swing, but the hole in the door frame won't. All the other rods are parallel with that one, and appear to indicate a shooting point to the left of the door.

I snipped these pictures from several of the reporter videos. The youtube references are at the top. Earlier in the thread, several fo the guys involved in law enforcement were cautioning against "talk without facts".

I agree with that point of view, and presented these facts although I do find them rather disturbing. The position of the shooter isn't in doubt. The fact the cops thought they'd shot the guy on the motorcycle is not in doubt - they admit that. From the geometry, I am not seeing how a barrel could have poked out of the opening door and precipitated the shots from the left hand side.

They carted all the evidence away within a couple hours of the shooting.

I think this will be an interesting case to follow.

UNRELATED: There's more weirdness about the Lake County Sheriff's dept, which I have not posted as it would definitely prejudice people looking at this case. Maybe another thread at another time.

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by marplots

In that photo with the rods (I assume tracking bullet paths), don't they all swing as you open the door? Wouldn't that give you an entire arc of possible source locations, depending on how wide the door was opened? Seems like you'd have to marry up the door with any bullet holes inside to sort it out.

You can actual place the shooter's gun quite precisely, say within 6 inches from the trigonometry. Notice the yellow tag "11". There the shot skimmed the door itself. And as Andrew noted, the far left hand shot hit the frame of the door.

So you will know the position of the shooter, and of the door at the time the bullets were fired, but not the order in which the bullets were fired. The latter can be guessed at, but we can presume the shooter's arm was waving around, and the door was opening. #11 should be the last shot?

It's clear the shooter killed a man that was behind a door. Arguably he may have had an arm sticking out with a gun in the hand. The shots that killed Scott went through the door.

That door was replaced with a white new door by the time a reporter did his story at 10:01 am. The timestamp is on the video, the white door appears at 1:44 in it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwV9r...eature=related

[marplots]

Originally Posted by mhaze

You can actual place the shooter's gun quite precisely, say within 6 inches from the trigonometry. Notice the yellow tag "11". There the shot skimmed the door itself. And as Andrew noted, the far left hand shot hit the frame of the door.

So you will know the position of the shooter, and of the door at the time the bullets were fired, but not the order in which the bullets were fired. The latter can be guessed at, but we can presume the shooter's arm was waving around, and the door was opening. #11 should be the last shot?

It's clear the shooter killed a man that was behind a door. Arguably he may have had an arm sticking out with a gun in the hand. The shots that killed Scott went through the door.

That door was replaced with a white new door by the time a reporter did his story at 10:01 am. The timestamp is on the video, the white door appears at 1:44 in it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwV9r...eature=related

I'm trying to get this straight in my head.

If the shots struck the door parallel, that means the door was not moving, right?

And if they went through the door first, they would continue to move from left to right? Where would that place the victim?

Also, did all the shots come from one shooter? If so, how long does it take to shoot that many bullets? If not, were all the shooters standing in the same location?

I've got it in my head that someone is knocking on the door when the shooting starts, or has just knocked. So, you'd have one cop right at the door or just next to it?

Did the police release an analysis of the ballistic/shot track evidence or are these pictures all we have to work with?

I know that's a lot of questions, but I'm not getting the "cut and dried" result. I'm trying to figure out why you would shoot through a closed door at that extreme an angle and expect to hit anyone, especially shooting blind. Now, if there is more than one cop shooting, I could see someone off to the side just firing "for effect."

Is the story from the police that only one officer fired?

[GeeMack]

Originally Posted by marplots

I'm trying to get this straight in my head.

If the shots struck the door parallel, that means the door was not moving, right?

And if they went through the door first, they would continue to move from left to right? Where would that place the victim?

Also, did all the shots come from one shooter? If so, how long does it take to shoot that many bullets? If not, were all the shooters standing in the same location?

I've got it in my head that someone is knocking on the door when the shooting starts, or has just knocked. So, you'd have one cop right at the door or just next to it?

Did the police release an analysis of the ballistic/shot track evidence or are these pictures all we have to work with?

I know that's a lot of questions, but I'm not getting the "cut and dried" result. I'm trying to figure out why you would shoot through a closed door at that extreme an angle and expect to hit anyone, especially shooting blind. Now, if there is more than one cop shooting, I could see someone off to the side just firing "for effect."

Is the story from the police that only one officer fired?

Assuming a single shooter, he was holding his gun oddly, in a position below his belt with his wrist tipped upward between 8 and 10 degrees, or he was crouching or kneeling, or he was just barely more than 3 feet tall.

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by marplots

I'm trying to get this straight in my head.

If the shots struck the door parallel, that means the door was not moving, right?

And if they went through the door first, they would continue to move from left to right? Where would that place the victim?

Also, did all the shots come from one shooter? If so, how long does it take to shoot that many bullets? If not, were all the shooters standing in the same location?

I've got it in my head that someone is knocking on the door when the shooting starts, or has just knocked. So, you'd have one cop right at the door or just next to it?

Did the police release an analysis of the ballistic/shot track evidence or are these pictures all we have to work with?

I know that's a lot of questions, but I'm not getting the "cut and dried" result. I'm trying to figure out why you would shoot through a closed door at that extreme an angle and expect to hit anyone, especially shooting blind. Now, if there is more than one cop shooting, I could see someone off to the side just firing "for effect."

Is the story from the police that only one officer fired?

Yep, you are not alone with your questions.

Which should all be sorted out in the investigation.

Which leads in turn to only one question.

Why'd they cart that door off so fast, and where is it?

SIDE COMMENT: I had a friend that was executor of an estate, where a homeowner was murdered. This may be a bit unusual, but that house was sealed and no one was allowed to disturb anything inside it for over a year.

Originally Posted by GeeMack

Assuming a single shooter, he was holding his gun oddly, in a position below his belt with his wrist tipped upward between 8 and 10 degrees, or he was crouching or kneeling, or he was just barely more than 3 feet tall.

Yeah, that pretty much had to be one shooter. Cowboy style one hand shooting? Sure not a Weaver or modified Weaver stance.

Comment on Marplot "to the side firing just for effect". Never. These are all shots to the center of mass of the supposed bad guy, with the intent to make him stop moving around. EG, to incapacitate or kill him.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by mhaze

Why'd they cart that door off so fast, and where is it?

Who is "they"?

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by WildCat

Who is "they"?

Doesn't it have to be the Lake County Sheriff's department?

I can't imagine they would have allowed the building owners of a rental property to throw that door into the dumpster.

You tell me who the "they" is.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by mhaze

Doesn't it have to be the Lake County Sheriff's department?

I can't imagine they would have allowed the building owners of a rental property to throw that door into the dumpster.

You tell me who the "they" is.

If the Sheriff's Dept. took it (which I'd think is likely) then they have it as evidence.

Have you contacted them with your concerns?

[brenn]

Originally Posted by GeeMack

Assuming a single shooter, he was holding his gun oddly, in a position below his belt with his wrist tipped upward between 8 and 10 degrees, or he was crouching or kneeling, or he was just barely more than 3 feet tall.

Seems that way to a person who has no training with firearms - to those who do, it seems just like the hip position I was taught in the police academy, or similar retention positions taught by most academies. Hip shooting is a common tactic for fast, close-range shooting in an emergency, so to a firearms instructor, the location of the shots, without more, would support the claim that the officers were suddenly surprised by someone pointing a gun at them.

To be relevant to Florida, here is a picture from the Florida Highway patrol Academy:
http://www.flhsmv.gov/fhp/academy/cl...4PG051107u.jpg


As for the shots going through the door - mentioned above - as with not knowing about shooting positions, those without experience, who don't spend some time thinking about the issue, may not realize that shooting through an opponents concealment ("cover" that won't stop bullets) is a very standard part of training for police and soldiers. A common error illustrated in training is for a new shooter to waste time trying to shoot around something held in front of the target, even though it clearly won't stop his bullets - the mistake then becomes obvious intraining. Dorrs and interior walls are common examples of things that people hide behind, and other mistakenly try to shoot around, even though the better tactic is to shoot through them.

Edited by Loss Leader:

Edited for hotlinking.

[Andrew Wiggin]

Originally Posted by GeeMack

Assuming a single shooter, he was holding his gun oddly, in a position below his belt with his wrist tipped upward between 8 and 10 degrees, or he was crouching or kneeling, or he was just barely more than 3 feet tall.

The holes lead off of the porch. The bottom edge of the door is above the porch, which is itself a step up from the ground. If the shooter was in a weaver stance on the ground to the left of the porch, about as close as he could be to the edge of the door, that would put the holes at about the right height. No odd positioning required.

[GeeMack]

Originally Posted by brenn

Seems that way to a person who has no training with firearms - to those who do, it seems just like the hip position I was taught in the police academy, or similar retention positions taught by most academies.

Leaving aside the persistent use of insults rather than reason in your replies, none of those in the photo have their hand below their waist, nor are any of them pointing their weapons in an 8 to 10 degree upward position. So it's irrelevant. And my firearms training began when I was about 11 years old, so although your implication fails, your continued effort to try to look smarter than everyone else is noted.

Originally Posted by Andrew Wiggin

The holes lead off of the porch. The bottom edge of the door is above the porch, which is itself a step up from the ground. If the shooter was in a weaver stance on the ground to the left of the porch, about as close as he could be to the edge of the door, that would put the holes at about the right height. No odd positioning required.

Considering the position of the door in relation to the ground as shown in other photos, that seems a more reasonable and more civilly stated analysis.

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by GeeMack

....And my firearms training began when I was about 11 years old...

Same here.

Originally Posted by GeeMack

...Considering the position of the door in relation to the ground as shown in other photos, that seems a more reasonable and more civilly stated analysis.

Five foot shooter, weaver stance, standing 8-12" below the concrete pad on the ground, could be. Or a tall shooter, shooting from the hip, maybe.

But how in the world does the shooter figure out the guy's got a gun so that he knows to shoot through the door?

Note this method puts any and everyone in that building at risk of injury or death. I'd prefer an officer to aim and shoot for the bad guy's center of mass using hollow point bullets, with a minimal chance of them then going on through and hitting innocent victims. Then again, in this case we start out hitting an innocent victim, so what the hell...

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by mhaze

But how in the world does the shooter figure out the guy's got a gun so that he knows to shoot through the door?

Note this method puts any and everyone in that building at risk of injury or death. I'd prefer an officer to aim and shoot for the bad guy's center of mass using hollow point bullets,

What if the arm and gun and head is in the door opening, but the center of mass is still behind the door?

Presumably this is how a guy expecting trouble will answer the door while brandishing a gun, rather than flinging it wide open and leaving him exposed.

[brenn]

Originally Posted by GeeMack

Leaving aside the persistent use of insults rather than reason in your replies,

Not an insult - you don't know anything about shooting, which is why you posted something that is erroneous; simple as that. Maybe that's overly broad; maybe you dn't know anything about defensive shooting, but I still doubt that you have even basic shooting knowledge.

Quote:

none of those in the photo have their hand below their waist, nor are any of them pointing their weapons in an 8 to 10 degree upward position. So it's irrelevant.

None of those guys are really shooting somebody in an emergency in the middle of the night. As for the exact height and angle in relation to the officer...how tall did you say he was again?

Quote:

And my firearms training began when I was about 11 years old, so although your implication fails, ...

My implication is that you lack any knowledge of defensive shooting or tactics and you've show that in this thread. I stand by that without hesitation.

[brenn]

Originally Posted by WildCat

What if the arm and gun and head is in the door opening, but the center of mass is still behind the door?

Presumably this is how a guy expecting trouble will answer the door while brandishing a gun, rather than flinging it wide open and leaving him exposed.

Seems obvious, but mhaze is simply using the same argument method he's used throughout the thread - to continue to question and try to force you to say more and more of the obvious, for no more apparent reason than to irritate other posters until they give up. Why I now ignore him.

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by WildCat

If the Sheriff's Dept. took it (which I'd think is likely) then they have it as evidence.

Have you contacted them with your concerns?

No, I haven't. But that's a great idea. I'll ask them about the door to the 1993 Branch Davidian compound while I'm at it.

Wait...

Originally Posted by WildCat

What if the arm and gun and head is in the door opening, but the center of mass is still behind the door?

Presumably this is how a guy expecting trouble will answer the door while brandishing a gun, rather than flinging it wide open and leaving him exposed.

What, like he's sticking a gun out ahead of him through a door swinging inward to the right?

I hope he's left handed.

Could be, of course.

[Howie Felterbush]

Originally Posted by brenn

Is this a commercially available target?

If so, where can I get some?

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by Howie Felterbush

Is this a commercially available target?

If so, where can I get some?

Leave it to Howie to get right to the bleeding heart of the matter. Maybe google steam punk-goth-hippie-metrosexual-targets?

Originally Posted by brenn

Seems obvious, but mhaze is simply using the same argument method he's used throughout the thread - to continue to question and try to force you to say more and more of the obvious, for no more apparent reason than to irritate other posters until they give up. Why I now ignore him.

Such as when brenn, earlier in this thread, claimed they didn't take the door.

Yeah right.

[LashL]

Originally Posted by WildCat

I have no idea why you say the police screwed up, are you under the impression they had a search warrant or something, and just went to the wrong address? Because that's not how it went down at all.

I don't see how the dead guy's family is entitled to anything. You don't get rich because your doofus relative likes to answer the door with a gun drawn.

The way I see it is that the police screwed up because their apparent reason for not advising the occupier of the home that they were police is that they mistakenly thought that they were at the door of the bad guy who they were seeking to arrest. As I understand it, they chose not to advise the occupier of the home that they were police officers while they were actually at the wrong door in the middle of the night. It seems to me that when you live in a place where it is legal to answer your door in the middle of the night with a handgun pointed at whoever might be on the other side of your front door, the police ought to have said that they were police officers and not some random stranger/criminal intent upon committing harm towards the occupants of the home.

It appears that the law in this particular jurisdiction doesn't require that but, in my view, it should.

I guess what it comes down to for me is that you cannot have it both ways, really. If you (I do not mean you personally, but rather the collective 'you' as in a state or a country) allow citizens to arm themselves with handguns and give them the 'right' to answer their doors with handguns in hand pointed at the door and whoever might be on the porch (which I disagree with), then it behooves the police to let the occupier know in advance that it is the police at the door so that the occupant has the opportunity to put the gun down before opening the door and being shot to death for pointing his gun at police officers who were, as it turns out, there on his porch in error.

That said, it also seems to me that it would behoove the occupant to ask, "Who is it?" to a knock on the door before pointing a handgun at whoever might be on the other side of the door.

It appears that the law in this particular jurisdiction doesn't require that but, in my view, it should.

So, I see fault on both sides. I do not solely blame the police for shooting someone who is pointing a gun at them, and I do not solely blame the deceased for answering his door and pointing a gun at the police on the porch since the law permitted him to have the gun and permitted him to answer his door in that manner (since the police had not identified themselves as police).

As I said initially, I see negligence on the part of both the police and the deceased, and I have no doubt that the police department's insurer will settle with the family of the deceased because the insurer will also recognize the negligence of the police in this particular case, and the deceased's family will recognize the deceased's contributory negligence in the matter. Nobody's going to "get rich" over it. But it was still entirely avoidable and unfortunate.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by LashL

The way I see it is that the police screwed up because their apparent reason for not advising the occupier of the home that they were police is that they mistakenly thought that they were at the door of the bad guy who they were seeking to arrest. As I understand it, they chose not to advise the occupier of the home that they were police officers while they were actually at the wrong door in the middle of the night. It seems to me that when you live in a place where it is legal to answer your door in the middle of the night with a handgun pointed at whoever might be on the other side of your front door, the police ought to have said that they were police officers and not some random stranger/criminal intent upon committing harm towards the occupants of the home.

The hilited part, that's a mighty big "if"! Do you have any evidence at all that it's legal and proper to answer the door with a gun pointed at whoever is on the other side in that jurisdiction?

[brenn]

Originally Posted by LashL

The way I see it is that the police screwed up because their apparent reason for not advising the occupier of the home that they were police is that they mistakenly thought that they were at the door of the bad guy who they were seeking to arrest. As I understand it, they chose not to advise the occupier of the home that they were police officers while they were actually at the wrong door in the middle of the night. It seems to me that when you live in a place where it is legal to answer your door in the middle of the night with a handgun pointed at whoever might be on the other side of your front door, the police ought to have said that they were police officers and not some random stranger/criminal intent upon committing harm towards the occupants of the home.

There's your mistake - it is not legal in Florida or any other state to answer your door "with a handgun pointed at whoever might be on the other side" and, in all 50 states, that gives the person you point the gun at a legal right to kill you in self-defense - makes no difference whether it's the police, your neighbor or a salesman.

Florida Statutes:
776.012Use of force in defense of person.
776.013Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.


Aside from that, while not announcing may have been a "tactical decision" in this case, even if the police are knocking to ask if you saw a traffic accident out front, they don't normally yell "police" if they are just knocking and waiting for you to answer, as in this case.

[GeeMack]

Originally Posted by brenn

Not an insult - you don't know anything about shooting, which is why you posted something that is erroneous; simple as that. Maybe that's overly broad; maybe you dn't know anything about defensive shooting, but I still doubt that you have even basic shooting knowledge.

The continued personal attacks in lieu of addressing the topic is noted. But hey, you have to go with what you've got.

Quote:

None of those guys are really shooting somebody in an emergency in the middle of the night.

Of course not. And none of them are holding a gun below their waist and shooting at an upward angle of 8 to 10 degree either. The photo has nothing to do with the discussion. It's like posting kitten pictures, which people sometimes do when they have nothing relevant to add.

Quote:

As for the exact height and angle in relation to the officer...how tall did you say he was again?

Without considering the approximately 2 step difference from the threshold to the ground, I figured the shooter was crouched or kneeling, or holding a gun in an unnatural position, or a bit over 3 feet tall. Oddly enough, or maybe predictably enough, you continue to misunderstand what I've written and/or address things other than what I actually said. I'm writing in English.

As for the angles, I measured them. The quantitative analysis, which didn't take into account the position of the threshold relative to the ground, was based on ergonomics. That's some sciency stuff about the shape, size, and configuration of the human body.

Quote:

My implication is that you lack any knowledge of defensive shooting or tactics and you've show that in this thread. I stand by that without hesitation.

Nothing in this thread objectively shows anything about defensive shooting or tactics one way or another. So again your implication, which seems to be based on misunderstanding what other people are writing, fails. But if that's what you have to work with, go with it.

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by brenn

There's your mistake - it is not legal in Florida or any other state to answer your door "with a handgun pointed at whoever might be on the other side" and, in all 50 states, that gives the person you point the gun at a legal right to kill you in self-defense - makes no difference whether it's the police, your neighbor or a salesman.

Florida Statutes:
776.012Use of force in defense of person.
776.013Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.
....

What Brenn has done here is to infer motive of a dead man.

There's your mistake - it is not legal in Florida or any other state to answer your door "with a handgun pointed at whoever might be on the other side"

All the above links show is that Andrew Scott WAS JUSTIFIED in answering the door with a gun in his hand if he thought there was serious trouble behind that door. The statutes work both ways, you see.

• Andrew Scott presumed "Bad Guy X" was behind that door, so he went to the door with a gun.
• Deputies stated they'd shot the guy on the motorcycle who went into that apartment and opened it holding a gun. It took the cops an hour and a half to figure out it was someone different.

And we'll never know because he's dead? Actually you might know, because the girlfriend was in the apartment and witnessed the shootings, as well as has knowledge of events prior.

Sure, Scott could have done something really stupid when he went to the door with a gun. But you know what? I know hundreds of average guys who own guns, and just about across the board, I'd trust their judgement in when to pull it out. Sure, the cops could have had an accidental discharge, hit Scott, then decided to cover it up with a story about his pulling a weapon. There's no more reason to assume that the cops were right than to assume that Scott was wrong.

So I have to agree with Lashl on this one - there is a "Catch 22" in the law on this point. And it's not the only case where this has happened - where a law abiding homeowner has held a firearm, but not fired it, and has been killed in his own home by police - using this theory of pre emptive firing when the opponent has a weapon.

More typically though this is SWAT team wrong house no knock raids. I think we need:

1. law to clarify the rights of the individual, possibly at the federal level.
2. to continue to publicize cases where deaths occurred due to overly aggressive police and SWAT teams, where the case was of trivial importance to society - busting for marihuana being the key area of abuse.
3. to support prosecuting the officers involved in these abuses, and not just let it settled out of court for money by the insurance company - as Lashl suggests will happen.

I'm not suggesting anyone should expect there not to be casualties if a SWAT team has to go into a hostage or terrorist situation. But for small scale drug dealing or suspected of such, even using the SWAT team is beyond the pale.

Trigger happy cops, killing people in the wrong house raided, need to do hard time.

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by brenn

There's your mistake - it is not legal in Florida or any other state to answer your door "with a handgun pointed at whoever might be on the other side" and, in all 50 states, that gives the person you point the gun at a legal right to kill you in self-defense - makes no difference whether it's the police, your neighbor or a salesman.

Florida Statutes:
776.012Use of force in defense of person.
776.013Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.


Aside from that, while not announcing may have been a "tactical decision" in this case, even if the police are knocking to ask if you saw a traffic accident out front, they don't normally yell "police" if they are just knocking and waiting for you to answer, as in this case.

Pretty much as I predicted earlier in this thread, and as the evidence posted in this thread illustrates, the attorney hired by the slain man has finished an independant preliminary investigation. And here's what he says:

On Monday, NeJame offered this account of how Scott died, based on a private investigation and the recollections of Scott's fiancee:

Scott and his 20-year-old fiancee, whose name has not been released, were watching a movie at his apartment when there was a loud banging on the door. There was no peephole, the outside light was broken, and deputies were standing away from a window. Opening the door a few inches, Scott peered outside, holding his gun in his left hand.

"How could he possibly know who was there? He didn't know they were law enforcement," NeJame said. "They overreacted, firing five to eight times."

The evidence confirms that the door was open only a few inches, NeJame said. Bullet damage on the door, as well as the trajectory of the bullets that came into his home, show that the gun was fired through a small opening of the door, he added.

The 26-year-old Leesburg man never knew it was law enforcement knocking, and he didn't point his gun at the deputies, attorney Mark NeJame said during a press conference at Scott's apartment. Scott also didn't have a chance to say anything before five to eight bullets were fired, NeJame said.

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/...man-front-door

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by brenn

There's your mistake - it is not legal in Florida or any other state to answer your door "with a handgun pointed at whoever might be on the other side" and, in all 50 states, that gives the person you point the gun at a legal right to kill you in self-defense - makes no difference whether it's the police, your neighbor or a salesman.

Florida Statutes:
776.012Use of force in defense of person.
776.013Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.


Aside from that, while not announcing may have been a "tactical decision" in this case, even if the police are knocking to ask if you saw a traffic accident out front, they don't normally yell "police" if they are just knocking and waiting for you to answer, as in this case.

Pretty much as I predicted earlier in this thread, and as the evidence posted in this thread illustrates, the attorney hired by the slain man has finished an independant preliminary investigation. And here's what he says:

On Monday, NeJame offered this account of how Scott died, based on a private investigation and the recollections of Scott's fiancee:

Scott and his 20-year-old fiancee, whose name has not been released, were watching a movie at his apartment when there was a loud banging on the door. There was no peephole, the outside light was broken, and deputies were standing away from a window. Opening the door a few inches, Scott peered outside, holding his gun in his left hand.

"How could he possibly know who was there? He didn't know they were law enforcement," NeJame said. "They overreacted, firing five to eight times."

The evidence confirms that the door was open only a few inches, NeJame said. Bullet damage on the door, as well as the trajectory of the bullets that came into his home, show that the gun was fired through a small opening of the door, he added.

The 26-year-old Leesburg man never knew it was law enforcement knocking, and he didn't point his gun at the deputies, attorney Mark NeJame said during a press conference at Scott's apartment. Scott also didn't have a chance to say anything before five to eight bullets were fired, NeJame said.

NeJame emphasized that state and federal law requires law-enforcement officers to knock and announce themselves at a person's front door. If deputies had done that, the situation would have ended differently, he said.

"The sheriff has boldly and arrogantly decided not to follow the law," NeJame said. "It endangers citizens and it endangers law enforcement."

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/...man-front-door

[marplots]

Originally Posted by mhaze

Pretty much as I predicted earlier in this thread, and as the evidence posted in this thread illustrates, the attorney hired by the slain man has finished an independant preliminary investigation. And here's what he says...

OK, I'll bite. Was the attorney hired by way of Quiji board or something?

[mhaze]

My bad .... "slain man's relatives"...

[marplots]

Quote:

"The 26-year-old Leesburg man never knew it was law enforcement knocking, and he didn't point his gun at the deputies, attorney Mark NeJame said during a press conference at Scott's apartment. Scott also didn't have a chance to say anything before five to eight bullets were fired, NeJame said."

How does the attorney know this? That's the pivot point for the whole case. I didn't think it had been settled.

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by marplots

How does the attorney know this? That's the pivot point for the whole case. I didn't think it had been settled.

I wondered whether when he said the door was only open a few inches, whether he meant to say that there were several inches visible through the opening left to right, or whether it was only open a couple inches from the door frame, front to back. In the latter case, someone outside could not have seen anything. In the former, Cop #1 with a bright flashlight might have seen something, shouted "gun" and Cop #2 to the far left side fired. But Cop #2 himself could not have seen a weapon, from the door position. Some unsettled issues here in my opinion.

Don't forget, he may also have testimony from a witness. The girlfriend who saw the whole thing. I'm sure the affidavits will emerge, should be interesting.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by mhaze

I wondered whether when he said the door was only open a few inches, whether he meant to say that there were several inches visible through the opening left to right, or whether it was only open a couple inches from the door frame, front to back. In the latter case, someone outside could not have seen anything. In the former, Cop #1 with a bright flashlight might have seen something, shouted "gun" and Cop #2 to the far left side fired. But Cop #2 himself could not have seen a weapon, from the door position. Some unsettled issues here in my opinion.

Don't forget, he may also have testimony from a witness. The girlfriend who saw the whole thing. I'm sure the affidavits will emerge, should be interesting.

It's obvious the cops saw the gun, isn't it?

What kind of irresponsible asshat opens a door with a gun in his hand? And if it was only open "a few inches" like the attorney claims it only bolsters the police claim that the gun was pointed at them.

Bottom line, if you're afraid of opening the door without a gun in your hand and pointed at the opening it's probably best to not open the door at all.

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by WildCat

It's obvious the cops saw the gun, isn't it?

What kind of irresponsible asshat opens a door with a gun in his hand? And if it was only open "a few inches" like the attorney claims it only bolsters the police claim that the gun was pointed at them.

Bottom line, if you're afraid of opening the door without a gun in your hand and pointed at the opening it's probably best to not open the door at all.

I guess where I'm at on that is the number of inaccurate and outright wrong statements by the Sheriff's office do seem to be mounting up, so why not question the "cops saw the gun"....

The attorney has stated explicitly that Scott did not point a gun at the deputies.

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/...man-front-door

http://www.dailycommercial.com/080712attorney

All of this was brought on by law enforcement not following the law. If they simply followed the law and announced, none of this would have happened. An innocent man was killed because the Lake County Sheriff's Office did not follow the law.

It just gets stranger and stranger:

NeJame and his law partner Jason Recksiedler said misinformation has been given to the public about the case, including Scott having a criminal history of drug-related arrests, which the Daily Commercial could not find.
NeJame said there are no police records against Scott and that the dead man's name had been smeared by LCSO.
"... To crucify and to smear an innocent person's name in the mud for your own political gain, because as sheriff, you want to pretend to everybody that you've done everything right, it's shameful and disgusting and it's a large part of the reason we are being as active as we are in this case," NeJame said. "Without us, without the various witnesses that have come forward, this very well could have been slipped under the rug."

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by mhaze

I guess where I'm at on that is the number of inaccurate and outright wrong statements by the Sheriff's office do seem to be mounting up, so why not question the "cops saw the gun"....

You think it was just a lucky guess?

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by WildCat

You think it was just a lucky guess?

I phrased that wrong or poorly. At this point, if he didn't have a gun, that fact would have came out. So he had one, and was carrying it. But the attorney states he didn't point it. That means (A) he's got forensics (B) he's got a witness that will testify to that or (C) both. I guess you could add (D) the attorney is making things up or making wild exaggerations from fact.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by mhaze

I phrased that wrong or poorly. At this point, if he didn't have a gun, that fact would have came out. So he had one, and was carrying it. But the attorney states he didn't point it. That means (A) he's got forensics (B) he's got a witness that will testify to that or (C) both. I guess you could add (D) the attorney is making things up or making wild exaggerations from fact.

Because attorneys with dollar signs in their eyes never make accusations they can't prove in court.

And as I said earlier, even if what the attorney claims is true (door was only open a few inches) it bolsters the police version, not his. If a gun is visible despite the door being open a few inches it certainly supports the claim that it was pointed at the opening. At the very least it was brandished with the intent of threatening whoever was on the other side of the door, because it could easily have been kept out of sight.

When you engage in reckless behavior with a firearm, you greatly increase your odds of getting shot.

[mhaze]

So explain this to me. The shooter is to the far left, the door is open a couple inches. Shooter sees WHAT? A couple inches of a barrel sticking out? For discussion, let's say the firearm was a Thompson pistol, single shot. Long barrel, so yeah, barrel could stick out of the door while Scott peeks out.

But it's not pointed at shooter at the far left, he's invisible to Andrew Scott.

Lots of questions. Yes, I agree not to take the words of the attorney with too much seriousness. We'll have to see what he actually produces on paper. What's your opinion about the legal theory of the Attorney, based on Supreme Court cases, that the police should have knocked and announced themselves? That's the lynchpin of his case in my opinion.

[The Dark Lord]

Quote:

What's your opinion about the legal theory of the Attorney, based on Supreme Court cases, that the police should have knocked and announced themselves?

I would like to see evidence that police are required to announce themselves when knocking on somebody's door.