Patterico's Pontifications

11/23/2006

More on the Video of the Texas State Trooper Killed by the 72-Year-Old Man

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 3:34 pm



Earlier today, I linked a not-safe-for-work video of a Texas trooper killed by a 72-year-old man, to show that: 1) bullets kill people, even when they are fired by old people; and 2) police may be overly cautious about returning fire when an older person points a gun at them — a factor that could explain why a 92-year-old woman was able to shoot three separate cops in Atlanta.

I have more information about the shooting depicted in that video. (As I warned in the previous post, the link to that video is not safe for work, because the site contains sexual content, and the video shows a shooting, and contains graphic sounds of a police officer dying.) I think this new information is relevant to the current debate.

This link says:

On August 3, 2000, State Trooper Randall Vetter was killed with a Ruger Mini-14 .223 rifle. Trooper Vetter stopped 72-year-old Melvin Hale for not wearing his seat belt. Hale got out of his car and aimed his rifle at Vetter because he believed the traffic stop violated his constitutional rights.

It occurred to me that there are more parallels between that video and the Atlanta situation than simply the age of the civilian shooting the cop.

For one, some libertarians appear to be arguing that the police in Atlanta somehow deserved to be shot because they were serving a “no-knock” search warrant in a drug case. Because these libertarians oppose both no-knock warrants and drug laws, they appear to lack sympathy for officers serving that type of warrant in that type of case.

Presumably these same libertarians oppose seatbelt laws. Do they believe that police should expect to be shot if they enforce seatbelt laws? Do they believe that the crazy old man depicted in the video is a patriot, standing up for his vision of the Constitution? Do they believe that a man has the right to shoot a police officer if he happens to think a traffic stop is unconstitutional?

Libertarians (and others) argue that no-knock warrants increase the danger to civilians and police. They argue that shootings like the one in Atlanta are foreseeable and avoidable. There may be some validity to that point, and it’s a worthy debate to have. However, keep in mind that the same arguments could apply to enforcement of traffic laws. A traffic stop is the most dangerous situation for any cop. Does that mean we should not enforce traffic laws?

Libertarians argue that bad guys sometimes pretend to be police serving search warrants, in order to rob people in the house. I am here to tell you, this is 100% true. But guess what? Bad guys also sometimes pretend to be police conducting traffic stops, in order to rob people. Again, this does not mean that we should do away with traffic stops — or that we should conclude that citizens have the right to shoot cops at traffic stops, simply because they are sometimes conducted by bad-guy robbers.

The police officer in the video, by the way, was 28 years old. He was married and had an eight-month-old son. He was a human being who did not deserve to die. And the cops in Atlanta are also human beings who didn’t deserve to be shot — assuming that (as all media reports suggest) they were lawfully executing a valid search warrant on a drug house.

I am happy to have people debate the wisdom of dynamic entries to serve search warrants. I think there are good arguments both pro and con.

What appalls me is the mindset that causes people to leap to conclusions about the case (such as the woman being “innocent” or the search warrant being served on the “wrong house”) — and especially that demonizes police officers shot for doing their job.

For the umpteenth time, I’d suggest that people gather all the facts before leaping to conclusions. And recognize that old people firing guns can kill just as easily as young people can — and may be able to do so more effectively, because of the reluctance of cops to return fire at an obvious elderly person. The video linked above is compelling and disturbing evidence of that proposition.

70 Responses to “More on the Video of the Texas State Trooper Killed by the 72-Year-Old Man”

  1. I was able to gather all the facts in this case, and concluded that it was murder of a police officer, in broad daylight, on public property.

    This is the kind of tragedy that we expect to happen to police officers randomly, and rarely; it is part of an officers risk package, and an officers compensation is greater because these risks exist.

    An event like this is nothing like the event in Atlanta.

    RJN (e12f22)

  2. Let me ask a stupid question. Does a search warrant qualify as a “no-knock search warrant” if the police identify themselves without literally knocking? I.e., if you have some reason to believe there’s a police officer with a warrant on the other side of the door, are you obliged to hold your fire when they barge in at least until you can visually identify whether they’re cops or not?

    The reason I ask:

    Dreher said the officers had identified themselves and then forced open the door of Johnson’s house of 17 years. She was alone in the house, police said.

    See, to me, that would qualify as a “knock.” But I admit, I don’t know what the rules are in this area.

    Allahpundit (bab333)

  3. This is the point I keep emphasizing: they identified themselves. The responses I keep getting: sometimes robbers call themselves police; or: maybe she couldn’t hear them.

    Or maybe she meant to shoot cops.

    See, we don’t know.

    But folks like Balko keep making assumptions anyway.

    Patterico (de0616)

  4. “This is the point I keep emphasizing: they identified themselves.”

    How do you know that? I watched the news conference on this issue and I came away completely confused as to what the officers actually did. Anyway, as I have stated elsewhere, the entry itself is completely beside the point.

    “For one, some libertarians appear to be arguing that the police in Atlanta somehow deserved to be shot because they were serving a “no-knock” search warrant in a drug case. Because these libertarians oppose both no-knock warrants and drug laws, they appear to lack sympathy for officers serving that type of warrant in that type of case.”

    For many libertarians the war on drugs is immoral; ergo, they are going to have less sympathy for the police than for the citizen in many drug law related incidents.

    Do you have more sympathy for the police? Or equal sympathy?

    Horace (cbe5f9)

  5. […] Yet another inaccuracy from Balko! Actually, the word “Balko” does not appear in the post that Balko quotes above. In that post, that quote appears once, not repeatedly, and is used to describe libertarians. It accurately describes many of the libertarians who have been commenting on my site about this, who have been saying that the officers “murdered” the woman and need to beg God’s forgiveness and such. […]

    Patterico’s Pontifications » Balko Distorts the Facts In a Lengthy Screed About How He Doesn’t Distort the Facts (421107)

  6. The responses I keep getting: sometimes robbers call themselves police; or: maybe she couldn’t hear them.

    Well then how would she have heard them knock?

    I’m curious to know what the other side would have advised the cops to do here. It sounds like what they really want to argue is that police shouldn’t be allowed to break in to serve a warrant, period.

    Allahpundit (bab333)

  7. You’re right, Horace. I should have said: This is the point I keep emphasizing: They identified themselves (assuming all the media reports are true).

    Patterico (de0616)

  8. That’s exactly what they’re arguing, Allah.

    And if it means no drug warrant will ever be successful, well, so be it, because we hate the war on drugs anyway.

    To which I say: fine. Write your legislator.

    Patterico (de0616)

  9. That’s exactly what they’re arguing, Allah.

    Just in drug cases? Or across the board?

    Allahpundit (bab333)

  10. I assume across the board, but you’d have to ask them.

    Patterico (de0616)

  11. You should post that video. It makes a good point about police dealing with elderly people with guns.

    And it’s a video!

    Patterico (de0616)

  12. “To which I say: fine. Write your legislator.”

    And protest. And commit acts of jury nullification. Etc.

    Horace (cbe5f9)

  13. Ah, here we go with that one.

    I’m not getting into that discussion again.

    Patterico (de0616)

  14. It can’t be that simple. They’re not that stupid.

    Allahpundit (bab333)

  15. Patterico,

    Well the historical evidence is clear. Jury nullification was widely practiced in the 18th and 19th centuries and was viewed as right by the general population. Indeed, until the 1830s or 1840s juries were expected to decide the facts and the law of the case in most jurisdictions.

    Anyway, since it is the ratifiers who created the Constitution, and not the folks in 1787, it is their general understanding that counts. As jury nullification was practiced widely in 1789 (when the document was ratified) the right is clear.

    Horace (cbe5f9)

  16. As much fun as it is to endlessly debate jury nullification and no-knock entries, I’m not participating, having done it many times before. Perhaps your pal Balko can open up comments.

    Patterico (de0616)

  17. Basically it is the professionalization of the law that squeezed out jury nullification – all for the worse since it actually undermines the original democratic nature and purpose of the jury process.

    Horace (cbe5f9)

  18. You should post that video.

    Nah, I couldn’t even watch that video all the way through. Besides, there wouldn’t be much debate; our commenters would be 100% on the side of the cops.

    Allahpundit (bab333)

  19. Patterico,

    Have you read Prof. Kramer’s “The People Themselves?”

    Horace (cbe5f9)

  20. Patterico,

    BTW, Balko is not my “pal.” My suggestion is that you deal with me as an individual. Thanks.

    Horace (cbe5f9)

  21. Nah, I couldn’t even watch that video all the way through. Besides, there wouldn’t be much debate; our commenters would be 100% on the side of the cops.

    Yeah, but it makes a good point about how police might treat old folks differently.

    Patterico (de0616)

  22. Perhaps your non-pal Balko can open up comments.

    I’ve debated these issues endlessly on this blog and won’t do it again today.

    Patterico (de0616)

  23. Well, that doesn’t keep you from telling me whether you read Prof. Kramer’s book or not.

    Horace (cbe5f9)

  24. It’s a binary response after all; yes or no. Not really much in the way of “debate” involved.

    Horace (cbe5f9)

  25. I don’t really read his site. And he’s rather new to Hit n’ Run.

    Horace (cbe5f9)

  26. For one, some libertarians appear to be arguing that the police in Atlanta somehow deserved to be shot because they were serving a “no-knock” search warrant in a drug case. Because these libertarians oppose both no-knock warrants and drug laws, they appear to lack sympathy for officers serving that type of warrant in that type of case.

    Presumably these same libertarians oppose seatbelt laws. Do they believe that police should expect to be shot if they enforce seatbelt laws? Do they believe that the crazy old man depicted in the video is a patriot, standing up for his vision of the Constitution? Do they believe that a man has the right to shoot a police officer if he happens to think a traffic stop is unconstitutional?

    Reductio ad absurdam. There is a huge difference between armed men — who may or may not be police — and police enforcing a seat belt law. In the first case, ANY reasonable person would be in fear for his life, while nothing but a lunatic would fear his life in the second case.

    If your goal is to take a gratuitous swipe at libertarians, find a better analogy.

    steverino (61686f)

  27. Horace,

    Whenever I call Balko on one of his inaccuracies, he invariably does a long post with more inaccuracies, making dark insinuations about how I do my job as a prosecutor. His minions swarm in here, knowing nothing about me other than the crap they read at his site, and talk about how awful it is that I am a prosecutor.

    I get snippy with these people I have never seen before.

    I have reviewed your comments and you seem well-spoken and reasonable. I apologize if I was snippy with you.

    I don’t really have time to re-debate jury nullification. I suggest you plug the term into my search engine and review the many, many posts I have done on the topic.

    Apologies again for any snippiness.

    Patterico (de0616)

  28. Reductio ad absurdam. There is a huge difference between armed men — who may or may not be police — and police enforcing a seat belt law. In the first case, ANY reasonable person would be in fear for his life, while nothing but a lunatic would fear his life in the second case.

    If your goal is to take a gratuitous swipe at libertarians, find a better analogy.

    Gee, steverino. Was your goal to misunderstand the analogy, or to make an honest argument?

    Did it bother you for me to accuse you of having a ridiculous goal?

    Well, it bothered me when you did it to me.

    Why would you accuse me of having the “goal” of trying to take a “gratuitous swipe” at libertarians?

    Why not, maybe, give me the benefit of the doubt and assume that I’m trying to make a valid argument?

    Maybe if you did that, you’d do a better job of understanding the analogy.

    In a search warrant and a traffic stop situation, in each case the officer is armed. So to compare “armed men” to “police enforcing a seatbelt law” is not accurate. It’s loading the dice.

    It’s armed men enforcing a traffic law, vs. armed men enforcing a drug law.

    In each case, there is the chance that the armed men are not truly police. There are examples of armed robbers posing as police making traffic stops.

    Patterico (de0616)

  29. Patterico,

    I really don’t care about whatever goes on between you and Balko. It could be that y’all are just talking past each other. But that is for y’all to work out.

    As to my “relationship” with Balko, well, I visit his website every so often (several months can go by generally), but we see a lot more of him now that he is working for Reason. He isn’t someone I know all that well in comparison to other folks that work there. He seems alright to me. Also, the reason that I don’t visit Balko’s site much is due to the no comments approach he takes.

    Anyway, if you haven’t read Prof. Kramer’s book, I’d highly recommend it.

    Horace (cbe5f9)

  30. Sure.

    I recommend my posts on jury nullification.

    Patterico (de0616)

  31. Horace,

    There are many substantive differences between the opinions of Rodney Balko and those of Patterico. If you tend to be liberal-minded and want the comfort of someone who agrees with you, by all means read Mr. Balko’s website. If you are conservative and want reinforcement from like-minded thinkers, I suggest you read Hugh Hewitt. But if you want to really think without a preconceived end result, I encourage you to come back and read Patterico’s blog.

    Browse through Patterico’s prior posts, especially the legal topics and abortion. I think you will be impressed by his reasoning, open-minded attitude, and the way he encourages diversity of opinions and genuine debate. And I challenge anyone who reads this blog for a month or two to disagree that California is fortunate to have someone like him representing the People.

    DRJ (8c00f0)

  32. DRJ,

    I’m not going to get into a detailed historical search of the guy’s statements.

    Technological change will probably make any problems with abortion moot. If the government will get out of the way.

    As a rule I am skepitical of government.

    Horace (cbe5f9)

  33. And yes, I am named after the Roman poet.

    Horace (cbe5f9)

  34. Horace,

    Thanks for your response. Unless I’ve misunderstood your point, it seems your goal is to share your wisdom with others like a modern-day Roman orator. Since you aren’t interested in historical searches, perhaps you haven’t read the great Greek poets. I encourage you to read what the Greeks thought about hubris since you seem to have so much of it.

    DRJ (8c00f0)

  35. DRJ,

    *sigh*

    Horace (cbe5f9)

  36. While I am saddened at Officer Vetter’s passing and I believe he should have immediately shot the suspect who advanced toward him armed with a rifle, for what great purpose was this man stopped while going about his business?

    Am I correct that he was stopped for the “crime” of not wearing a certain type of nylon restraining device on his body?

    The officer was doing his job and undoubtedly this old man was a dangerous fool anyway… but why on God’s green Earth does society task police officers with lowering auto insurance premiums by restricting Americans’ freedom to decide what, if any, precautions they choose to take regarding their own bodies?

    Christoph (9824e6)

  37. Put another way, if horses were still the main mode of transportation, do you think the old Texas marshals should have been assigned the job of ensuring that cowboys wore helmuts and, if they were, can you picture a few cowboys getting PO’d and the situation escalating into ridiculous violence?

    I can.

    Christoph (9824e6)

  38. Christoph,

    The Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) has participated for many years in seat belt enforcement because it helps reduce traffic fatalities and injuries. I believe that the DPS and local police were participating in a specific state-wide campaign to enforce seat-belt laws for adults and children around the time of the Vetter shooting.

    There are many people in Texas who strongly object to seat-belt laws but few are like Melvin Edison Hale, who was sentenced to life in prison for killing Randall Vetter. Hale was no fool. According to some reports, he had a history of escalating threatening behavior with local law enforcement.

    The libertarian comments on this topic are admirable. I would like to be a libertarian, too, but our educational system has failed to adequately inform and prepare people to take responsibility for their own lives. Until people are responsible enough to make reasonable decisions (e.g., in this situation, to choose between wearing a seatbelt or having adequate economic resources to pay for increased medical costs from accidents), libertarian philosophy will remain wishful thinking.

    In the meantime, we have to deal with the real world and wearing a seatbelt is a reliable, common-sense solution that produces proven results.

    DRJ (8c00f0)

  39. “The Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) has participated for many years in seat belt enforcement because it helps reduce traffic fatalities and injuries.”

    So would helmuts on cowboys, but it obviously infringes on their freedom.

    DRJ, is man free or isn’t he?

    If he can’t be forced to work where he doesn’t want to, eat healthy, give up handgliding or multiple sex partners, why must he be forced to wear nylon restraints because it’s safer?

    Of course it’s safer. No one disputes that. But reducing people’s freedom to control their own body for their own safety is not the correct role of law enforcement or the business of other people.

    I acknowledged above the old man is probably a dangerous fool. Frankly, that was so obvious I didn’t bother to research it.

    I have nothing against the police officer, but he died doing something valueless and counterproductive that should not be what law enforcement is about. It should be about public safety — protecting people from external dangers, not their own safety equipment choices — enforcing public morality as in not harming others (good vs. evil), enforcing court orders to protect, not take away, free citizens’ rights.

    If he had at least shot the man aiming a rifle at him I might acknowledge some value in his final actions. While undoubtedly the officer was brave and held off firing either due to decency or shock (many people freeze when confronted with aggression), police officers in free countries should not be enforcing helmut or seatbelt laws. These laws should be struck down.

    I can think of all sorts of things that might be and are safer for you, some of which probably (PROBABLY!) will kill you earlier than you may otherwise perish… but do I have a right to show up with a gun at your place and threaten to take away your freedom if you don’t comply? Does society?

    Are you Americans or serfs?

    Christoph (9824e6)

  40. “Hale was no fool.”

    I’m using the term differently than you.

    I believe evil actions are foolish and that Hale was not justified in taking a man’s life because the man was doing his job forcing him to wear a seatbelt. I would have convicted Hale.

    I am, however, talking about how immoral it is to task police officers in a free society with reducing their citizens’ freedoms (when such reduction is not directly related to anothers’ safety).

    Lowering health care costs, etc., doesn’t cut it.

    Want to pass a law saying it’s okay for an insurance company to put a clause in their contract that if a driver isn’t wearing a seatbelt or helmut they pay the claim for that person’s injuries at a reduced rate?

    Fine.

    Suicide is forbidden by many insurance policies and smoking will get you higher premiums. This is all to the good.

    Why not fine someone for not washing their hands before eating? It’s risky, you know.

    Christoph (9824e6)

  41. And new in the geriatric threat file, there’s this one today.

    See Dubya (93ba81)

  42. See Dubya,

    Geriatric threat file.” Catchy and to the point. Patterico should add a file.

    Christoph,

    It’s odd that I seem to be on the “Enforce our seatbelt laws” side of this debate given that we have this discussion in our family and I’ve been known to take the other position. But the question here isn’t whether we should have seatbelt laws, the question is whether we should enforce the laws we have. I am unabashedly pro-enforcement on the latter question. If we have laws, we should enforce them or do away with them.

    The fact that Texas pursues seatbelt enforcement campaigns is a time-honored law enforcement technique. When enforcement is stepped up, especially for traffic offenses, there is generally increased compliance overall. From a law enforcement perspective, Mission Accomplished. Increased enforcement may also spur citizens to rethink whether they want those laws and take action to change them. Thus, from a citizens’ perspective, Mission Accomplished again.

    In my view, that’s how things are supposed to work. A nation of people who view civil disobedience as the way to make things work is a nation of anarchists.

    DRJ (8c00f0)

  43. “I would like to be a libertarian, too, but our educational system has failed…”

    Snicker, snicker. You have a deep commitment to the admirable principles behind libertarianism, but unless our state-run educational system improves sufficiently, it just couldn’t work?

    Christoph (9824e6)

  44. The only similarities I see between the descibed cases is both might have been prevented with better communication.

    The DPS trooper did not know Hale, the shooter, had threatened to kill the next officer who pulled him over for not wearing a seat belt.

    “This information was known to be in police databases but because police databases don’t interface or talk to each other, this information was not shared with [Vetter] prior to him making the traffic stop,” [former law enforcement officer Russell] Chaney said.

    http://www.news8austin.com/content/your_news/default.asp?ArID=173297

    The Atlanta police shooting was a warrant execution gone bad. It might have been the team’s last of the day. They had an address to work with and probably no situational awareness of the shut-in occupant who never answered her door. Even if technically legal in all respects, it was still a preventable tragedy.

    steve (1fd41b)

  45. What specifically would police expert steve have done to prevent the tragedy? I’m not saying it wasn’t preventable, I’m just looking for specifics.

    Patterico (de0616)

  46. Christoph,

    I’m not a libertarian nor do I have a “deep commitment to the admirable principles behind libertarianism” so I guess your *snickers* were wasted. Earlier, my comment acknowledged the admirable and consistent libertarian comments and that I would like to be a libertarian … in an ideal world, but I don’t think it’s practical in today’s society.

    I respect people who hold deeply-held libetarian beliefs and there are aspects that I find intellectually appealing. I could say the same about liberal and socialist beliefs but I don’t think any of them are practical or beneficial enough to be widely implemented in American society.

    DRJ (8c00f0)

  47. I believe much depends on whether the narcs were the ones who went through the door Tuesday night. Pressure for the warrant to be released will be overwhelming. Nobody gives a rip if they redact the name of some confidential informant.

    In the Texas case, Vetter had no way of knowing the man he was pulling over had made a threat against arresting officers in general.

    steve (1fd41b)

  48. I live in Texas. I knew of the Vetter case, have a great deal of sympathy for his widow and surviving children and in fact donated a bit to help her out, and I think Hale is where he belongs. That being said, Vetter, the three guys who got shot in Atlanta, and other policemen are in Angel Eyes’s position. They taken the money, and have to cope with the resulting duties and working conditions. It’s part of the deal.

    I’m a downwardly mobile person. I was born firmly in the middle class, and can still function in that environment when, e.g., I’m performing my duties for my employer on the expense account. Socially I am hanging on to lower middle class by the barest thread, and most of my everyday acquaintance is firmly Lower. Absolutely no one of my acquaintance other than a very few middle and upper-middle class individuals believes any longer that the police are working in the interests of society in general.

    Think about the woman in the Atlanta case. Ninety-two years old. That means she was born in 1914; her parents had to be acutely aware of the First World War. More importantly, as she was black, she knew where the drug laws came from. One of the (few) advantages of being from a backward part of the country is that things others considered well-settled long ago are new enough where I came from to be remembered, and one of those memories is of a distant cousin, a Sheriff’s deputy, discussing the marijuana laws, with great satisfaction, in terms of keeping down the n-rs and their juke joints. White people, you see, had money, so during Prohibition they could afford bootleggers and speakeasies. Poor blacks had to make do with chuckleweed and jazz, and that, along with a bureaucrat named Anslinger who was jealous of the lionization of J. Edgar and the “G-Men”, is where the marijuana laws came from in the first place. Mrs. Johnston, born in 1914, was a teenager and young adult when that was going on, and had personal experience with it. Old people are not necessarily wise, but they have experienced things younger folks have not.

    That’s one fork. The other is — in the demographic where I now live, “drugs” (largely cocaine and the methamphetamine derivatives, with otherwise-prescription psychoactives rising fast) are readily available, and there is for all practical purposes no restriction on marijuana; heroin and opium are not popular for several reasons, many not known to me. I personally do not do drugs and never have, at least not the illegal kind (pharmacists are a regular acquaintance at my age), but fully one-fifth, possibly a quarter, of my acquaintance do. Yeah, you can chastise me for not turning them in. Bullshit. All of them spend regular vacations at the county lockup and occasional trips to Huntsville, and if the police don’t know who’s dealing and using it’s because they deliberately choose not to know.

    One of the hazards of drug dealing is raids. Some gang, short of what they need to satisfy their customers (perhaps their supplier got jugged) swoops down on another, with guns. When that happens, what the victims pray for is that it is not the police. The rival gang will take your guns and your money, and shoot you if you argue. The police will do all that, plus taking your car, your house, and your kids, shove you in the lockup until your friends come up with a ransom (“bail”), and brag about their virtue in doing so. The users and dealers regard the police much as they do tornadoes; a force neither stoppable nor predictable, swooping down to visit disaster upon people chosen at random. Rival-gang raids can be defended against, if you’re willing to take the risk. The trick is telling which is which.

    If you aren’t a druggie, and somebody steals the car you need to get to work, the most likely result of reporting it to the police is that you’ll wind up in the county lockup for “possession”. Zero tolerance, remember? The traces left on your clothes by your cousin’s doobie — which you booted him out of the house for, which pissed your sister off — are plenty. Get the car back? Buuuuuuuuwahahahaha! That’s a lot of work the cop gets no points for, but five minutes with a Dustbuster™ and a lab test will improve his chances of promotion the next time the DEA audits the department. You won’t get that job back afterwards, anyway.

    It is conventional cynicism to say the War on Drugs is over, and the drugs won. It is more correct to note that the police threw the match from the getgo. No-knock raids, random confiscations, and the like are desperation tactics employed by losers, precisely morally equivalent to Islamic suicide bombers. The more such measures are employed, the less respect and admiration the police have or will have, or deserve. Whether or not Mrs. Johnston was doing or dealing drugs is irrelevant, as is whether or not the police involved were “just doing their job”. “Legal” does not automatically equal “right” or “just”. The whole situation is simply an example of violent futility. That being the case, yeah, the cops will just have to take their lumps, and the situation is going to get worse before it gets better — and the prospect of improvement is remote at best.

    Regards,
    Ric

    Ric Locke (ecb3c6)

  49. […] Patterico linked to a video today where a 72 year old man shoots and kills a officer because he felt being pulled over was against his constitutional rights. […]

    Flopping Aces » Blog Archive » The 92 Year Old Criminal (986d71)

  50. “I respect people who hold deeply-held libetarian beliefs and there are aspects that I find intellectually appealing. I could say the same about liberal and socialist beliefs but I don’t think any of them are practical or beneficial enough to be widely implemented in American society.”

    There’s a massive difference between the practicality of implementing massive social programs, for example, on the one hand, and not assigning police officers to be nanny-state babysitters making sure everyone is tucked in safe and sound in their automobiles on the other.

    Christoph (9824e6)

  51. FOLLOW-UP: One requires an extensive bureaucracy… the other doesn’t require the officers to do anything.

    It also frees them up to prevent crime and stuff.

    Christoph (9824e6)

  52. Patterico Out-Analyzes Instapundit…

    What the Heck was I Thinking!? (feb53c)

  53. “Libertarians (and others) argue that no-knock warrants increase the danger to civilians and police. They argue that shootings like the one in Atlanta are foreseeable and avoidable. There may be some validity to that point, and it’s a worthy debate to have. However, keep in mind that the same arguments could apply to enforcement of traffic laws. A traffic stop is the most dangerous situation for any cop. Does that mean we should not enforce traffic laws?”

    It sounds so reasonable the way you say it, but when you parse it, the statement falls apart. For law-abiding people, a traffic stop is no threat at all. The blue lights come on, you pull over at a spot of your choosing, and a uniformed officer walks over to your car. You have plenty of time to assess what is happening and how to handle it. As someone with a bit of a lead foot, I can verify that there is no threat or fear for the average person in being stopped by the police for a traffic violation.
    On the other hand, when men with guns dressed in black break down the door at 2AM, I have no way of assessing who they are or why they are there. They may yell “Police” a few times, but so could a gang of thugs. There’s no way I can determine who they really are or why they are there. The best I can hope for is that, given only seconds to react, I figure out whether I should respond with force or do nothing.
    It’s a tragedy in the making. Anyone who advocates no-knock raids for non-violent offenders has faulty judgment, IMO.

    GS From FL (936b55)

  54. no sympathy for the texas shooter, he murdered a police officer.
    full sympathy for the 92 year old martyr for liberty in atlanta. three officers in plainclothes engaged in a “dynamic entry”. why should we presume she knew they were cops? just because the cops said they identified themselves? when cops do home invasions just like criminals, they deserve to get shot.
    they deserve to get shot because they feel they are above the law, and many prosecutors enable this feeling when they decline to charge criminal cops. yes, i’m a libertarian who opposes drug laws and no-knock entries, and i’m familiar with accounts such as that of alberto sepulveda…
    http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle-old/169/modesto.shtml
    alberto was an 11 year old boy who was killed when a police officer fired a shotgun into his back when he was lying on the floor (accidentally, claims the cop) during a drug raid on a house in modesto. so far as i am aware, the cop was never prosecuted.
    the life of a cop is no more valuable to me than the life of a child.

    assistant devil's advocate (e0368c)

  55. Want to pass a law saying it’s okay for an insurance company to put a clause in their contract that if a driver isn’t wearing a seatbelt or helmut they pay the claim for that person’s injuries at a reduced rate?

    Great, so our tax dollars can pick up the rest. Thanks for the great idea.

    At any rate, if I ain’t wearing my seatbelt, and we have a wreck in which you are at fault, my insurance company isn’t the one paying, yours is.

    I don’t have a contract with your carrier.

    My decision to be a libertarian asshole shouldn’t impact your premium. Period.

    Phil Smith (7589ac)

  56. 2) police may be overly cautious about returning fire when an older person points a gun at them

    Lets profile ’em!

    actus (10527e)

  57. ‘For one, some libertarians appear to be arguing that the police in Atlanta somehow deserved to be shot because they were serving a “no-knock” search warrant in a drug case.’

    I’ve never read anything to this effect in either a blog or its comment section. I do know many people (libertarians and others) who believe that no-knock raids dramatically increase the danger for both police and householders and that therefore when police get shot during them the police force bears responsibility for that death, but that’s a completely different point.

    ‘Presumably these same libertarians oppose seatbelt laws. Do they believe that police should expect to be shot if they enforce seatbelt laws? Do they believe that the crazy old man depicted in the video is a patriot, standing up for his vision of the Constitution? Do they believe that a man has the right to shoot a police officer if he happens to think a traffic stop is unconstitutional?’

    This is a further leap of illogic based on the initial misconception. If the police force puts its officers in a dangerous situation and they get shot by accident (accident in this case including the belief on the householder’s that they are illegal intruders) then the police force bears some responsibility for that. Those who deliberately and knowingly shoot at police officers should be prosecuted whether that be in a no-knock or a traffic situation. Those who have good reason to think that a police officer in a given situation is an illegal intruder who may pose a physical threat then they have every right to fire.

    B (08fd8d)

  58. Dynamic raids are a danger to all involved. I think that what you are hearing is the frustration that people have when a raid is performed on someones home and that person in the home is killed, then subsequently is found to be the wrong house or not the suspect in the warrant, the police are totally relieved of any and all responsibility in the death of the person. Where does that leave us? We are prosecuted if we end up shooting/killing a police officer if we defend our home, yet the police have zero accountability…..because of their job. That kind of decision places zero value on our lives over police officers and I have a serious issue with that.

    DKSuddeth (ac44fb)

  59. #58. I agree completely. Law enforcement risks very little in these raids. They’ve had the training and have a reasonable idea of what to expect. And when they screw up and kill someone innocent, they never seem to punished in any significant way.
    However, God help the resident if they think they’re being attacked and shoot at the police officer. Much of law enforcement’s attitude can be ascertained by Patterico’s comment that he is “appalled” that “people to leap to conclusions about the case (such as the woman being ‘innocent’..)”.
    When a prosecutor is so out of touch that they are appalled that people assume a 92 y.o. is not a drug dealer, you know that police and prosecutors have lost all perspective.

    [Utter nonsense. First, she doesn’t have to have been a drug dealer to have knowingly fired at cops, who reportedly held shields marked “police” and announced that they were police. Also, read Flopping Aces’ account of the 91-year-old armed bank robber. Look at my video of the 72-year-old cop killer. Would you think a 57-year-old grandmother would be a suicide bomber? Don’t make assumptions. — P]

    GS From FL (530c59)

  60. I think traffic stops are reasonably dangerous situations for officers (and civilians), so they should keep doing them. I think no-knock raids are unreasonably dangerous situations for officers (and civilians), so they should stop. Officers are human beings who don’t deserve to die, especially not because the State doesn’t want to let a pound of marijuana go. As long as they’re on the books, I think we should enforce the drug laws; it’s just the methods of enforcement that I would quibble with, if they are unreasonably dangerous, taking into account the gravity of possible harm both with and without that particular method of enforcement.

    And I don’t read Balko.

    [Your argument is not unreasonable. Just recognize the costs and benefits of both sides. Preventing dynamic entries will mean the end of effective search warrants in drug cases, as drugs will always be disposed of. Do you want to end undercover buys too? Those are very, very dangerous. — P]

    Linus (719cc0)

  61. Preventing dynamic entries will mean the end of effective search warrants in drug cases, as drugs will always be disposed of.

    Maybe, but aren’t there some policies that would mitigate the potential harm, without rendering drug warrants useless? I don’t know, maybe requiring the no-knock to be served in the daytime.(Out of curiosity, have there been any studies done on how often drug evidence is destroyed following a search warrant announcement?)

    Do you want to end undercover buys too? Those are very, very dangerous.

    I agree, and I might. I don’t have any sort of idea on the percentage of cops who die in undercover buy-related incidents or the percentage of evidence/arrests which come from undercover buys.

    Linus (719cc0)

  62. Do you want to end undercover buys too? Those are very, very dangerous. — P]

    how is it legal for police to buy illegal drugs but we are not legally allowed to do so? why are police allowed to break the law, to enforce the law?

    dksuddeth (ac44fb)

  63. Balls. Let’s clear the air a bit.

    STIPULATED: Having and enforcing laws against the use of and trade in recreational pharmaceuticals is in the best interest of the community.

    STIPULATED: The police officers in the Johnston case were honest, diligent, and brave, acting in the best interests of the community as they understood it.

    STIPULATED: The actions of the police officers in the Johnston case were fully in compliance with all laws, regulations, and valid directives of the United States, Georgia, and the County and municipality in which they occurred, and of the Department(s) they were member(s) of.

    STIPULATED: Age does not inevitably confer wisdom, sagacity, good judgement, or a desire to conform to Law or community standards, nor is the converse true. A grandmotherly little old lady may be a criminal, just as a jive-talking youth in baggy trousers may be a brave and cooperative member of the community.

    Note that I don’t fully agree with all of that, but those points are irrelevant to what makes this case resonate, and it is well to eliminate their use as red herrings to redirect the discussion along unproductive lines.

    Simply put: it is time and past for the police to shit or get off the pot — to decide, once and for all, whether to be Dzerzhinsky (“The police are to be feared; obey them or they’ll hurt you”) or Officer Friendly (“The police are to be respected; obey them, because they have your best interests at heart.”) I admit to a preference, but that, too, is irrelevant. Given proper effort, either method can work, for large enough values of “effort” and small enough values of “work”. But the two are utterly antithetical, and in either case the concomitants and side effects of whichever one is chosen will simply have to be coped with. If shooting people is a reasonable tactic, the possibility that they will shoot back has to be lived with.

    No-knock raids are pure Iron Felix, and trying to justify them with Officer Friendly arguments (including the vapid “dynamic entry”, buzzwordism at its worst) discredits both approaches. You wind up with the worst of both worlds — too wimpy and indecisive to be feared, too violent and arbitrary to be respected. Which is, in fact, exactly where you are now, and shooting Mrs. Johnston illuminates that like harnessing the Sun to a spotlight.

    Regards,
    Ric

    Ric Locke (6e68b4)

  64. so ric, more violent & arbitrary is the ticket? perhaps that can be arranged.

    seriously, i find your argument interesting and also agree that age is a red herring here.

    since it is the legislature that creates the laws that carry with them a mandate to enforce, and the police who determine the method of enforcement, it does not seem illogical to hold those institutions to account. By the time the individuals cops have their mission and are massed outside a citizens’ door, the whole process is well nigh rolling along, from the underlying laws to the warrants to the concussion grenades, helmets and flak jackets.

    My comment may be convoluted but my point is that anything view of the mechanism leading to cop and citizen deaths such as the one in atlanta has to zoom out to an institutional level, or it is pointless. human error must also be built into any view of the system – where human error results in death and terror there can be no shrugging it off as error. For example, the good faith exception permitting warrantless no-knock (or other) entry is a travesty, albeit a practical one, in that it elevates the governmental interest behind a grevious error above the rights of the citizen without regard to guilt or innocence. Hello…? That is wrong.

    All of this should go into any calculus regarding drug laws – then we can talk about Ric’s first stipulation and the meaning of “best interests of the community”.

    biwah (0865cf)

  65. Re the respone to #59.
    To say it is “utter nonsense” to assume that a 92 y.o. woman is not a drug dealer baffling. Sure, there are freak cases with 90 year old criminals, but they are the miniscule exception, not the rule. At this point, I, and most everyone else probably, assume she was not a drug dealer.
    And when you say that she may not have been a drug dealer and still knowingly fired at police officers, I think you have lost perspective of her point of view. Innocent people, presumably terrified at gunmen barging into their homes in the middle of the night, don’t suddenly try to kill police officers on a whim.
    Do you know any 90+ year olds? Do you have any idea how long it takes most people that age to hear and process information? We’ll probably never know, but I strongly doubt that she knew they were police.
    It’s fair to say we should wait for more information, but to be “appalled” that people assume a 92 y.o. woman who was gunned down in her home was an innocent person is, in your words, “utter nonsense”.

    GS From FL (530c59)

  66. “More violent and arbitrary” may or may not be the solution. The point is that it’s a choice, and you have to make the choice — and live with the results.

    What a lot of people seem to want is that door-breakers be seen as Officer Friendly. If Officer Friendly, with a heart of gold filled with the milk of human kindness and genuine concern with my welfare, breaks down my door, I can be expected to offer him a toke and congratulate him on his clever contrivance in catching me out. That’s what Patterico wants “dynamic entry” to mean.

    But regardless of mealy-mouthed platitudes, breaking down doors is not a friendly act and cannot be construed as one. Not by the victims, and not by the perpetrators, either — as you will find if you ever get to overhear cops discussing it among themselves. All you get from trying to have it both ways is is to lose either form of authority. Pick one and stand by it, and you may or may not succeed. Dithering never gets anywhere.

    Regards,
    Ric

    Ric Locke (6e68b4)

  67. Just recognize the costs and benefits of both sides. Preventing dynamic entries will mean the end of effective search warrants in drug cases, as drugs will always be disposed of. Do you want to end undercover buys too?

    I want the INSANE War on Some Drugs ended. End the war, and end the dynamic entries and undercover buys.

    mitch (55069c)

  68. I live in central Texas and I remember this when it was happening. The guy was a known nut with violent tendencies.

    So far, the evidence concerning the reputation of the elderly lady (20 years older–which does make a difference in physical functioning) doesn’t seem similar to this guy’s story to me.

    By the way, I started out as a prosecutor 26 years ago. Things like the following started coming out of my mouth, before the facts were all in, too:

    “May God forgive this old lady for firing on 3 cops who were, from all available information, just doing their jobs.

    Because of her actions in firing on officers, she’s now getting to find out whether that forgiveness is available.”

    I quit before I became even more confused and started believing that prosecutors were supposed to be on the side of the police rather than on the side of justice.

    Jerri Lynn Ward (611b99)

  69. Thanksgiving Weekend Wingnut Roundup…

    Do you suppose the wingnuts are thankful for anything? Ace of Spades – we’re thankful Robert Altman is dead.Althouse – I’m thankful for rechargeable batteries.American Thinker – we’re thankful that people in Baghdad get 4 to 8 hours of electricity…

    AGITPROP: Version 3.0, Featuring Blogenfreude (72c8fd)

  70. […] Regarding the shooting in this case, Prof. Klinger wondered: how do three guys get shot in a situation like this? He said that his initial hypothesis is that the cops were thinking: I can’t shoot this old woman. Then, she starts shooting at them, and they start to get hit, and they realize that they’d better take care of business, or they’re all going to end up dead. This is the hypothesis discussed in this post, which presented a link to a video of a 72-year-old man who murdered a police officer who probably took too long to react because of the old man’s age. […]

    Patterico’s Pontifications » Interview with a Use-of-Force Expert Regarding the Shooting of the Woman in Atlanta (421107)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0936 secs.