Cops invade home in Ogden, get shot by Army Veteran with PTSD

[Original Poster]

I can't stand the way they're writing these articles about this incident but here, read up Police suspect former soldier in Utah police shooting | Reuters Basically 6 cops with a drug warrant trespassed into a US Army Veteran's home who had PTSD and he opened fire, killing one, critically wounding 2 and wounding the other 3. Currently all 5 surviving officers as well as the "suspect" are in the hospital. Cops turn a non-violent crime into a violent one. Apparently people don't have the right to protect their homes anymore. Any police officer willingly trespassing onto a person's private property over a worthless drug warrant deserves to get shot. Yes, I know the officer had two young children, but what he ought to be doing is looking out for their future by refusing to support prohibition.

[Xei]

So... you're siding with the guy who indiscriminately shot six people who were just doing their jobs?

[Original Poster]

No, I'm siding with a guy who defended his home from invaders. And "Just doing their jobs" is a typical excuse for immoral behavior. Their jobs are to serve and protect, not invade the home of a guy because he had a couple plants.

[Alric]

If it was one of those cases where the police just smashed the door in and ran inside, I would agree with you. Those are actually very common, though not really legal. In this case however, they knocked on the door and announced them self and they had a warrant. So it sounds like they were doing it by the book.

[Original Poster]

That's the story they're claiming. Anyways, the guy has PTSD according to his father, you can't expect him to act rationally in the face of armed soldiers at his place of residence. Besides, I don't give a fuck about a warrant for drugs. If it's a warrant for murder, fine but I don't consider a drug warrant to be a warrant at all. I consider these men to be trespassers and he was in his legal right to defend his home.

[Spartiate]

Besides, I don't give a fuck about a warrant for drugs. If it's a warrant for murder, fine but I don't consider a drug warrant to be a warrant at all. I consider these men to be trespassers and he was in his legal right to defend his home. Solid defense...

[Original Poster]

They turned a non-violent crime into a violent one. How could it be any clearer than that? They turned someone who was not a criminal into a criminal.

[Oneironaut Zero]

I'm sorry Omnis, but - as much as I feel for the guy, and whether or not you agree with the law - what those cops did was legal, so far as I know. Just because you don't acknowledge a warrant for drugs as a warrant, it's a warrant. Is it a bullshit warrant? Yes. But it's a warrant. PTSD or not, you are just plain not allowed to shoot the police, when they are serving a warrant. If you are implying that the cops had enough forewarning of this man's PTSD that they should have chosen a different tactic, then that man should not have been allowed to own a gun in the first place.

[Original Poster]

I'm sorry Omnis, but - as much as I feel for the guy, and whether or not you agree with the law - what those cops did was legal, so far as I know. Just because you don't acknowledge a warrant for drugs as a warrant, it's a warrant. Is it a bullshit warrant? Yes. But it's a warrant. PTSD or not, you are just plain not allowed to shoot the police, when they are serving a warrant. If you are implying that the cops had enough forewarning of this man's PTSD that they should have chosen a different tactic, then that man should not have been allowed to own a gun in the first place. My implication is that, when it comes to the war on drugs, the police are creating the crime. This man is not a criminal and should not have been issued a warrant in the first place. I don't give a fuck if its legal, I don't give a fuck if the cops were ordered to go to his house. My implication is I don't follow unjust orders, I don't participate in a system that cleans out competition for the mafia and indirectly causes thousands of people to die by the hand of the mafia. My implication is the only reason the police should ever break into a home is because there is an actual criminal inside. If we can't make this distinction, then why not throw out our right to privacy? Fuck it, what purpose does our right to defend our property have if the cops can subjugate it with bullshit laws? Frankly, my opinion is that when it comes to the war on drugs, the only good cop is a cop on strike.

[DuB]

So attempting to murder 6 people was, in your view, a perfectly reasonable response to this situation?

[Original Poster]

No but opening fire on home invaders is justifiable. Do you believe that we do not have the right to defend our property?

[DuB]

No That's a relief.

[Original Poster]

He was not attempting murder, he was acting in self defense.

[DuB]

Oh, okay.

[Original Poster]

Glad you understand.

[Spartiate]

He was not attempting murder, he was acting in self defense. I'm gonna start shooting cops who try to stop me for speeding.

[Original Poster]

So you believe you have no right to defend your property?

[Photolysis]

Meh, depends how the situation came about. You do hear about the occasional horror stories where the police go charging in. Hell, an episode of Bullshit! from Season 8 features a case where they did this to arrest a man for a completely legal prescription of pain killers under the guise of suspected dealing of drugs, even after a several-week surveillance of the man found no evidence of this whatsoever. The man actually thought he was being robbed at first instead of being arrested. So under certain circumstances, yes I could see how this kind of situation could occur due to mistaken identities and/or an instinctual reaction, and whilst tragic he shouldn't be prosecuted for any crime if that's the case. Not that would ever happen. On the other hand if he actively knew it was the police before opening fire then there's no excuse. Though the police will insist they yelled out their identity beforehand even if they actually didn't. A similar thing happened during the Jean Charles de Menezes case.

[Burke]

There's not enough information, in my opinion, to completely justify this one way or the other. It simply states a "knock and announce" search which does not say whether they knocked, stated who they were and he calmly opened the door, or if they knocked, got no answer and bursted through the door guns drawn. It was said that the man has PTSD, so if the latter is true, I could see him having a "flashback" and having an episode in which he fires sporatically into the group of officers. If that's the case then it is completely justifiable as he was, in his current mental state, "defending his property." However, if the police knocked on the door, stated "police, we have a search warrant," and he then proceeded to shoot at them for no apparent cause, then it was an unfortunate murder which was not justifiable. I would first like to hear from the officers and the suspect to hear their sides of the story before drawing any major conclusions. From the information provided it sounds like it was likely the first scenario I said, in which the police rushed through the door and the suspect had some type of episode of PTSD. If that's the case, then I'd side with you Omnis, but if he began firing for no apparent reason, then I would have to side with the others.

[Spartiate]

So you believe you have no right to defend your property? What's the police gonna do, steal your wallet? In the rare event that they unjustly destroy your belongings, file a civil suit, don't fucking shoot them... No sane person would expect any good to come from escalating violence. Use some common sense man, you sound like a redneck rocking on a porch with his shotgun.

[ninja9578]

If they barged in with no warrant, or entered the home without identifying themselves and that they had a warrant, yes the man had the right to shoot them. From what I see, they identified themselves and served him with a warrant. He refused to come out, so they had the legal right to enter the home to detain him. Sorry, this time I'm siding with the cops.

[Original Poster]

Meh, depends how the situation came about. You do hear about the occasional horror stories where the police go charging in. Hell, an episode of Bullshit! from Season 8 features a case where they did this to arrest a man for a completely legal prescription of pain killers under the guise of suspected dealing of drugs, even after a several-week surveillance of the man found no evidence of this whatsoever. The man actually thought he was being robbed at first instead of being arrested. So under certain circumstances, yes I could see how this kind of situation could occur due to mistaken identities and/or an instinctual reaction, and whilst tragic he shouldn't be prosecuted for any crime if that's the case. Not that would ever happen. On the other hand if he actively knew it was the police before opening fire then there's no excuse. Though the police will insist they yelled out their identity beforehand even if they actually didn't. A similar thing happened during the Jean Charles de Menezes case. There was another story of a man awoken by his wife who told him they had home invaders so he grabbed a rifle to check it out and they unloaded nearly 40 shots into him. There was another story where the police raided a man's house and found a pipe and like a gram of pot but in the process they murdered both his dogs including a puppy and a dog in a cage. There's not enough information, in my opinion, to completely justify this one way or the other. It simply states a "knock and announce" search which does not say whether they knocked, stated who they were and he calmly opened the door, or if they knocked, got no answer and bursted through the door guns drawn. It was said that the man has PTSD, so if the latter is true, I could see him having a "flashback" and having an episode in which he fires sporatically into the group of officers. If that's the case then it is completely justifiable as he was, in his current mental state, "defending his property." However, if the police knocked on the door, stated "police, we have a search warrant," and he then proceeded to shoot at them for no apparent cause, then it was an unfortunate murder which was not justifiable. I would first like to hear from the officers and the suspect to hear their sides of the story before drawing any major conclusions. From the information provided it sounds like it was likely the first scenario I said, in which the police rushed through the door and the suspect had some type of episode of PTSD. If that's the case, then I'd side with you Omnis, but if he began firing for no apparent reason, then I would have to side with the others. I agree. But my opinion is jaded by the fact that I know how Utah Police behave, especially the Drug Taskforce, and they lie in every report they submit. To me it's not at all unlikely that they busted through the door before the guy even had a chance to respond. So many people get raided in this state and they don't provide more than 10 seconds before they break in. What's the police gonna do, steal your wallet? In the rare event that they unjustly destroy your belongings, file a civil suit, don't fucking shoot them... No sane person would expect any good to come from escalating violence. Use some common sense man, you sound like a redneck rocking on a porch with his shotgun. The police are nothing more than gangsters working for the prison industrial complex, at least the Drug Taskforce. They should be treated no differently than any other organized crime syndicate. I typically prefer to take a stance where I value life, but in this case because everyone is acting like this officer is a hero who died in the line of duty as though he were taking on some thugs, I chose not to be sympathetic. They asked for this, this man presented no threat to anyone. He was growing some pot in his backyard. They turned him into a gunman. If they barged in with no warrant, or entered the home without identifying themselves and that they had a warrant, yes the man had the right to shoot them. From what I see, they identified themselves and served him with a warrant. He refused to come out, so they had the legal right to enter the home to detain him. Sorry, this time I'm siding with the cops. You can side with the fascists if you like, I'm siding with the Constitution.

[Oneironaut Zero]

So you believe you have no right to defend your property? Put shortly: I believe in the right to protect one's property. In reality: This case is about more than simply the right to protect one's property. If the police properly announced themselves, as said, the man made a decision that disagreeing with a(n arguably) bullshit law was worth the price of his life. Given the charge, it is not a gamble I would have taken. Some things are better off taken care of on the back end. This was one of those things. When you are dealing with the police, you may not agree with what they charge you with, but you have a very important decision to make: Is what you're fighting over worth dying for, at that particular time? Just, or not, the law of the land is the law of the land. So if you are going to disagree with an established law by using deadly force, you are basically making the statement that [whatever the offense is at the time] is worth dying for, because - as the law sees it - the police are justified in taking you out, if you fire upon them. Again, I'm not saying that the War on Drugs isn't BS. It is. But when the sh!t hits the fan, sometimes it's better to bite the bullet,figuratively, rather than literally.

[Original Poster]

Yeah... I would not have reacted the way this man did. My reaction and my opinion on this thread is based upon the way the story has been presented. The police aren't even questioning whether or not it was right to invade a man's property over a drug warrant. They're angry because they didn't know he had an automatic weapon. I understand what the law is. The law is what police use to justify their syndicate's existence. I may not be inclined to get in a shootout with police, but I am perfectly inclined to support someone who chooses to fight back. I have no choice, Utah is more similar to Eastern Germany than not at this point. I support full on revolution.

[tommo]

I honestly just lold when I read the title then read the first paragraph and chuckled heartily. I knew it would be some bullshit drug search. Basically the top comment says everything Yet another law enforcement officer dies while attempting to uphold a failed public policy that has triggered the worst crime wave in history. Yet another law enforcement officer dies while attempting to prevent a citizen of this ‘once proud and free’ nation from choosing to self-medicate with one of God’s most amazing plants. Yet another law enforcement officer dies in order that unconscionable Transnational Corporations, and their Media Enablers, can continue to abuse, addict and poison us for obscene profits. According to the CATO Institute, ending prohibition would save roughly $41 billion of expenditure while generating an estimated $46 billion in tax revenue. Prohibition is nothing less than a grotesque dystopian nightmare; if you support it you must be either ignorant, stupid, brainwashed, insane or corrupt. And I would add drug dealers themselves.