I don't know. I'm not convinced the deputy's action was so overzealous. I'm not sure that a lot of clear-headed folks I know wouldn't handle themselves pretty similarly in his shoes.
The guy was looking up some stairs, understood threats of forthcoming gunshots from who-knows-who, and at that point more or less already behind cover. He fudged the address, sure, but he doesn't know it then, has no reason or (understandably) any space in his mind to think it must all be a big mistake. And the resident cannot be expected to register any commotion from downstairs to be the sheriff's department making a mistake. It's all very foggy.

Still, the deputy could have saved all parties concerned a lot of aggravation just by clearly announcing "Sheriff's Department" when he entered. When nobody responded to his knock--and it's as likely that he did identify himself at that time as it is that someone on the floor above wouldn't have heard anything through a closed door--he wouldn't have been stupid to assume that anyone inside surely had ears. This aspect is what really jumps out at me from the story.

Actually, I don't think he fudged the address. The call came in on a cell phone from another living space at the same address.

I really don't understand the breaking in without back-up.

I also don't understand why he didn't radio back to dispatch when he got no answer. It's not like he heard screams and beatings. He heard nothing which is clearly evidence of nothing, not a sign that someone is in imminent danger of great bodily harm.

You are correct. He found the right address, and the two buildings are on the same plot.
But take for granted that he hadn't visited the property previously. Two likely buildings, and him one man. If he'd chosen the second building we'd never have heard about it.
That's a fifty-fifty gamble.

It was a simple mistake in emergent circumstances.
I'm not prepared to baste him for it.

Also, we can't guess the content of the 911 call. I can recall several incidents that generally warrant immediate ingress; that means past the door or through it.

-My boyfriend's drunk. He's mad. He won't let me leave,
he's screaming. I'm really scared...
-I need an ambulance. My sons are fighting. Harry's bleeding everywhere. They're downstairs...they're in the kitchen, they're going crazy. I think Dick cut Harry. Please hurry...I can hear them screaming...

It's a good bet that this was such a situation. Pausing to let the band know he knocked is unnecessary; they knew where he was. Also, serious domestics are almost always assigned multiple responders. He knew another car was en route.

More importantly, if the call described imminent danger to someone on the premises and it was discovered that someone died in the time he loitered outside, and that he could have prevented it, he'd find some amazing shit on his plate in pretty short order.

This is one of those curious stories in which nobody is really right and nobody is really wrong, except the guy on the giving end of the domestic assault.

I just have a problem with shooting and not knowing your target... what if is was just some kids saying smart ass things, what if there really was a bad guy hold a woman against her will right behind the wall you just fired shots....

Bottom line a spray of bullets is the wrong answer to most every situations and every situation you don't fully know or understand what's going on.

Nothing good could've come from his shooting his weapon, there was no benefit to the situation....

This is wrong on so many levels, that officer got lucky he didn't actually shoot anyone. he shouldn't be so lucky to get off scot free....

Well, yeah, a gun fight always sucks.

However,

no. That's a very inconsiderate view of the facts.

Prudence doesn't allow one to offer the benefit of the doubt when threatened with lethal force. The parameters of the deputy's job demanded that he be through that doorway at that time.

All the facts that could be known at the time advised him that he was likely walking into certain violence. While he was less than diligent in sufficiently identifying himself, he could not accept whoever was inside to be aware that a deputy was coming through.

When told he was about to meet gunshots, and the seeing the would-be assailant rounding the corner, he took the guy at his word. He didn't have any choice. He used his gun to cover his retreat and then told radio that the situation involved an armed antagonist.

His oversight was in neglecting—failing, to be sure—to associate himself with law enforcement sufficiently to the residents.

Again. It was a no-win for everyone. The residents are lucky they didn't get killed, and the same goes for the deputy.

I was with you, kinda, up until there. It's pretty basic to be aware of the target, and what's beyond, and he had no idea of that. Firing at sounds to cover a retreat? That's just plain wrong.

Orthogonally: if instead of a high-cap whatever, where he could spray and pray (that the bullets wouldn't hit the putative captive girlfriend and/or kids, say) if he really thought he was in danger but had only a six-round revolver, do you think he would have been tempted to at least come damn close to disarming himself to scare some folks and cover a retreat?

For those reading who have actually read something about or been trained in handling hostage situations -- which, at least arguably, he had some reason to think he might have gotten involved in -- isn't shooting up the place blindly among the long list of obvious Things Not to Do?

Haven't read much or been trained in hostage situations. But, it's pretty much common sense to me...

Yup; me, too. That said, common sense is not always reliable. This time, I think it is.

Spray and pray is not a good idea. Ever. Especially from some one "profesional enough". However I think the Attorneys support of said actions and bastardization of the fourth are equally if not more disturbing than the actions of the Deputy.



Apparently it is now legal to kick doors and fire in houses without recourse.

But only with a shiny badge.

(And, I'm willing to bet that the concealed weapons permit badges would not fly)

It is all about another deputy operating under the "Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius." theory.

No matter if they make a gross error, they are always in the right. Unfortunately, it will undoubtedly take the death of an incident victim by one of these law enforcers for changes to be made.

We don't know the content of the 911 call, but we do know it was from a cell phone which could not have been reliably traced to that address and upon arriving at the address, the officer found no evidence of imminent or in progress violence. That warrants some caution for a Lone Ranger. Google up the term "Swatting".

Searching the news reports once more for some appropriate facts to prove my point, I've realized that I was incorrect in my assertion that the resident followed up his threat, beginning to move around the corner, etc.
I've discovered the source, which I mistakenly remembered as one of the news articles.



Sorry guys. That's my bad. Your position has certain credence, given the actual facts.

Also, Point of Information:

You're undoubtedly right as concerns the revolver scenario. But that wasn't my argument. Please don't straw man me Joel; I'll lose

EDIT: fixed quote formatting

We're cool, honest. I wasn't trying to set up a strawman, pinky swear; just making an orthogonal point.

And yeah, if the cop had been -- even in the case of an error -- dealing with a situation where he actually thought he was under attack, I'd be less critical. Up to the point where he started shooting, I think there was at least a decent argument that he was doing the right thing under his circumstances -- people with badges, too, do have to deal with the information that they have at a given moment, and not what we all know in retrospect. Far as I can tell, up to then, he was simply making a mistake, and responding to a call that he had every reason to believe was a domestic at that place.

That's exactly right. We don't know the content of the 911 call. If you and I are cruising and dispatch assigns us the primary to a domestic, and its already escalated, then we take it with the information radio furnishes us. If we're worth our badges, we don't second guess dispatch, ever.


If I said, "You know, Dean, maybe she messed up. Maybe she's exaggerating. Besides, it might have been from a cell phone. Clear it; tell her we're leaving."
You'd say "fuck yourself, Sietch. That's not policy."


If, when we arrive, we can't determine the focus of the complaint, we're not off the hook. We can't just clear the call and leave. If we do, we're going to get really tight, you and I, because we'll probably be looking for new jobs together. If the source of the call isn't apparent outside, it stands to reason that it must be inside the building. That's due diligence.

So, we're staying. And while we're there, we're not just going to wait around, depending on the nature of the call. Again, see:


It doesn't matter if it was reliably traced. You and I are there because that's the address radio gave us. The dispatcher didn't just make it up. It was the address the caller gave them.

Also, call 911 on your mobile. More often than not the call center can trace it PDQ. If they can't, and the call is especially serious, they can get the info about the number from your carrier if they have to, which means billing address etc., and go from there. And if it's serious and they didn't get the address/call was disconnected/whatever they'll call back pretty persistently to find out where they need officers.

Now, it could be that this was a less-than-urgent situation. It's possible the call was for a non-severe domestic, something along the lines of "my girlfriend won't take her car off my driveway. I told her I don't want her here" or "I told my stepson to get out. He's still arguing about. I want him off my property. I want him no trespassed". Should this come to light, then I would agree with you without reservation.

In the meantime, my money says it isn't. If I'm wrong, I'll buy you a beer.