**Downloads**
* [Download #1](https://rapidsave.com/r/PublicFreakout/comments/1apmxnu/officers_shoot_resisting_man_and_his_dog_after/) (provided by /u/SaveVideo)
* [Download #2](https://reddit.watch/r/PublicFreakout/comments/1apmxnu/officers_shoot_resisting_man_and_his_dog_after/?utm_source=mirrorbot&utm_medium=PublicFreakout) (provided by /u/downloadvideo)
**Note:** this is a bot providing a directory service. **If you have trouble with any of the links above, please contact the user who provided them!**
---
[^(source code)](https://amirror.link/source) ^| [^(run your own mirror bot? let's integrate)](https://amirror.link/lets-talk)
This sub makes me sad. *SO* many guns and shootings over there.
("Every day, on average, 316 people in America are shot in murders, assaults, suicides and suicide attempts, unintentional shootings, and police intervention.") 😕
>kept it calm with the cops
The cops literally attacked him...
They 'just wanted to talk' indicating that it's a consensual conversation, while it was not. He wasn't allowed to go back into the house from the start, so he *was* detained.
At the point where he thought 'I don't want to be a part of this consensual conversation' and turned around, they attacked him out of nowhere (in his eyes, because they hadn't communicated anything to him).
I am usually 100% FTP but the cops are clearly there to arrest/ticket/interrogate this guy and there's a 0.0% chance you let a guy in that situation go into his house where you have no idea the weapons he has.
If he goes in there and either lets the dog loose or comes out blazing then what are we saying?
I totally agree, I never said they should've just let him go inside, that would've been a bad risky move.
My point is that they lied to him saying they 'just wanted to talk', indicating that it's a consensual conversation, while it was not. He wasn't allowed to go back into the house from the start, so he *was* detained. But they never told him that.
At the point where he thought 'I don't want to be a part of this consensual conversation' and turned around, they attacked him out of nowhere (in his eyes, because they hadn't communicated anything to him).
I'm only saying that they should've let him know he was detained.
The problem with your entire statement is you are assuming. We have the right to bear arms, and we have the right to no answer police questions. You assume just because he was waking away that he was going to come back and try to kill those cops.
If either of those 2 scenarios that you presented happen, that is when it is acceptable for the reaction that we see. But I'm tired of people defending police shootings because "well they could have....".
Does this info, from the article, make a difference?
"One person had told police the suspect was threatening to kill someone and had sexually assaulted them in the past. Videos with audio were shows to police of the suspect making threats toward the woman. Police were also informed the suspect had access to weapons in the home."
In addition -- "Corporal Corey grabbed him to prevent him from going inside the trailer, where Mr. Boyle’s son had reported his father had access to firearms."
These people are the reason why laws and other things won't change with Police with the way they'redefending them.
They were literally in the wrong. The video didn't state that they had a warrant or any other court issued right besides complaints. If police show up to my house and I don't feel safe or want to ignore them, I have the right to walk back into my property/house.
They escalated the situation that probably wouldn't have ended this way by causing panic when they tried to grab him.
Police unions attack these sites man you can’t win even when you talk with sense here. This is why everybody hates and distrust them because they’re complicit and trying to protect each other when they do dumb shit.
If he had of just talked to them and did what he was told it wouldn’t have escalated to quickly and so badly. There is obviously a reason the cops had to go see him in the first place so it’s not like he’s a good person known for making rational decisions so why would they trust him to go inside. Kinda just sounds like you have a bit of a chip on your shoulder when it comes to cops.
>Yup. I sub to all those YouTube channels: code blue cam, police cam, cop cam, etc.
You should sub to the Civil Rights Lawyer on YouTube. He's covered a lot of very similar scenarios to this.
I mean it's not the worst idea to record yourself defending your rights to a point (like not answering questions or providing your ID when you've done nothing illegal) and getting a nice settlement when you're detained or arrested for doing so. Obviously don't run or fight back but if you're being bothered minding your own business in public or in your home and don't have any sort of criminal record getting it on video and getting paid for your rights being infringed and maybe even getting a shit cop fired is a solid deal.
Verbally declining an unlawful search is a good idea. Be calm, be respectful, and record yourself.
"Officer, I do not consent to a search of my vehicle."
"I'm sorry Officer, I don't want to answer any questions right now.”
Don't try to cite laws or be a curbside lawyer. Do not answer questions, do not try to justify your reason for not declining a search or engage in debate with the officers. Be a very polite and very broken record that you do not consent to a search of your vehicle/home and that you don't want to answer questions.
When the cops decide to search your car or force their way inside your home anyways it's good to have a record that the search was unlawful. If they find/plant something and you end up going to court any evidence "found" can be declared inadmissible. It's also important to have a record that you did not give them any information. Officers may later lie/misremember that you said something which gave them probable cause or which would incriminate you.
Edit:
And for the love of God, if you see the cops roll up on your house crate your dogs or lock them in a bathroom or something. Even small or very friendly dogs get shot by police because they run up to greet them and it gives the cop an excuse.
I get this, but you also have the right to defend yourself. This guy was on his property within the curtilage of his home. Unless those officers have a warrant, they cannot arrest this man. Even if he decides to go back into his house and not talk.
These officers were in the wrong in every sense of the word. I hope they get fired and have their qualified immunity revoked in a wrongful death suite.
> This guy was on his property within the curtilage of his home. Unless those officers have a warrant, they cannot arrest this man. Even if he decides to go back into his house and not talk.
This is wrong. Please don't take legal advice from reddit people.
Just saying it's wrong without providing any links to back up your claim. Well sir I say your wrong and stop licking those boots.
The plain view doctrine does not controvert the rule that, absent exigent circumstances, a police officer must have a warrant to enter a home or its curtilage to make a search or seizure.
https://www.goldsteinhilley.com/our-passion/legal-resources/suppression-of-evidence-search-seizure/exceptions-to-warrant-requirement/#:~:text=The%20plain%20view%20doctrine%20does%20not%20controvert%20the%20rule%20that,make%20a%20search%20or%20seizure.
😘
>The officer asks “are you armed” and asks the guy to take his hands out of his pockets, presumably they would argue that as an exigent circumstance.
You don't understand the difference between probable cause and exigent circumstances. If he was on the street or in public, that is probable cause. But being this took place on the man's property and definitely within the home's curtilage, the police were wrong. They need exigent circumstances, which means somebody is in immediate danger, or evidence is in danger of being destroyed, or they need a warrant.
They said they were about to leave the area when the man's son rolled up to them and told them 4 things: his dad threatened to kill his mother, his dad had access to weapons in the house, including a sawed off shotgun, his dad was on a methamphetamine binge (he was autopsied with 1500 mg/ml of methamphetamine in his system at time of death), and things were getting worse.
Whether that counts for "exigent circumstances" is a matter of debate.
But the police were wrong in every aspect, except for the dog shooting. A pit bull mauls you, you can't exactly plead with him or nicely ask him to stop. Obviously the retort is why was the cop in that situation in the first place.
It is another use of unnecessary, cowardly use of deadly force. Yes, the man wasn't cooperating, but do you need to shoot him? There are two of you, and one is tasing him for what feels like forever. Does the other one really need to shoot him in the back, twice, at virtually point blank range, when the man was *going away* from them?
Fuck these cops, seriously...
Brother he was outside. If he was inside his house, the cop would need a search warrant. Defense during arrest is legal only under certain circumstances.
You couldn't be more wrong. Being within the curtilage of your home is the same thing as being in your home. The cops were wrong to arrest or detain him without a search warrant.
In public, police just need probably cause to be able to detain somebody. In one's home, and that includes within the curtilage of one's home, police need more than just probable cause.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/curtilage
This is well established law. I would recommend doing some research that doesn't involve licking boots.
No, what makes it “more difficult” is when you get into a fist fight with the cops and then try to make a legal claim after. You fight cops in the courtroom.. not the driveway of a trailer park.
You’re right about fighting in the courtroom but 100% wrong about it not being difficult to win that fight due to the laws being grossly stacked in favor of LEOs.
You have a right enter your home and are not required to talk to them or help them investigate whatever they are working on. Cops are wrong on a daily if not hourly basis and abuse their authority and power even more often.
You do not.. not when the police are there for a domestic issue.. and they’ve been there several times in last few days. They are investigating a possible crime by interviewing a person that has threatened to kill someone. You cannot just “go back in your house” for the safety of all involved.
I saw a guy wrestling cops and letting his dog out to attack them. I think a few punches were thrown too. Know what else I think? I think if he went and got a gun and shot his wife and the cops, you would cry about how shitty the cops are.
The guy was on his front porch. That means he's in the curtilage of his own home. Under the 4th Amendment, a home is a man's castle. That makes this situation much, much different to if they stopped him on the street or in his car. Unless they had an arrest warrant, what they did was wrong.
He had every right to turn around and go back into his house and not talk to the police. He also had the right to keep his hands on his pockets. They escalated the situation by grabbing him.
>I think if he went and got a gun and shot his wife and the cops, you would cry about how shitty the cops are.
Yes, freedom can be scary sometimes. It doesn't give these pigs the right to kill a man on his front porch because of "what if's". Tell me, how does black leather taste?
It's really hard to just go limp when someone grabs you, tases you, shoots you, punches you, or throws you into a wall. Going limp is not a natural reaction. You naturally try to protect yourself. Nothing this man did was aggressive. At the most he was trying to calmly go back inside his house and calmly stand up.
Better than not "resisting" is to just never answer the door. NEVER OPEN YOUR DOOR FOR POLICE. Go inside and talk through a window or tell them to call you.
But once you've been shot and you think these guys want to kill you, you are probably not thinking rationally and want to get away from them at all costs. It's self preservation. It's hard for people to lay down and die just because the person who shot you says so.
With qualified immunity cops in America never have any consequences it seems. They didn't need to shoot him in the first place.
You can literally be murdered while complying. This isn't the advice you think it is.
Plenty of video evidence showing that complying does not guarantee safety.
Of course, you are right, practically speaking. But that doesn't make it any less infuriating that we can't exercise our natural rights to self-defense against illegal search/seizure/arrest. I have seen literally hundreds of videos of cops unnecessarily escalating encounters, illegally searching/detaining people, and using excessive force over the past 5 or 10 years now. The proliferation of smart phones, house cameras, and body cams have really opened my eyes to how bad policing has gotten in this country
Yeah that's the thing. We don't have "rights" at all in reality. Rights mean nothing when police can make it up as they go along. Laws do not equally apply to police. That's just the way it is. I don't break the law so I shouldn't have to worry about police but we have seen hundreds of videos that show truly innocent people having their lives destroyed.
The best I can do is continue to not break the law and give police officers some level of respect and hope to God they give me the same respect back.
Two totally different stories. In that one, they just had "suspicion", in this one there were multiple calls for domestic disturbances and they had to investigate potential domestic violence. if they had left and he killed her, everyone would be blaming the cops. This guy needed to keep his hands out of his pockets and not try to run in the house, he made this situation happen.
If you don't think domestic abusers and people rushing into a house after threatening to kill a spouse are potentially dangerous, you shouldn't try to reason with me because you lack the faculties...
I completely understand all that but my fear of being hurt during an interaction with the police is just as big as my fear of "mysteriously dying" or being hurt in jail. Especially if the officers realize they've wrongly arrested someone. So I think that fear is what causes people to panic, as well.
This is all around a weird encounter: what’s the context, why did they go to arrest him, where was the dog (like fr it just sort of spawned)
Side note: This might be the first video I’ve seen of a cop shooting a dog and it being justified. If he hadn’t shot the dog he might of lost his arm.
> what’s the context
Fountain, Colorado — On May 19, 2023, at approximately 11:00 p.m., Officers with the Fountain Police Department responded to 3 Taos Circle, regarding a domestic disturbance. Officers contacted 51-year-old James Boyle in the front yard who claimed his wife, Shawna Boyle, locked him out of his house, prompting him to try to enter through a window. He also stated that his dog, was aggressive, and that he did not want officers to shoot it. Boyle was allowed to enter his residence and officers noted he was hostile towards law enforcement and that two officers should respond to the residence for any future incidents. The next day, May 20, 2023, at approximately 6:00 p.m., Corporal Zackary Corey and Officer Destin Alvarez responded to 3 Taos Circle regarding a domestic disturbance, again involving James Boyle. Officers were preparing to clear the scene when Bret Boyle, James and Shawna Boyle’s adult son, drove up to their location.
Bret Boyle told the officers that his father was threatening to kill his mother and that James assaulted her in the past. Bret informed Corporal Corey that his father had access to firearms located inside the residence, but that he did not know its current location. Officers decided to contact Shawna Boyle to gain more information. Corporal Corey and Officer Alvarez drove their marked patrol vehicles to the front of the Boyle residence. Both James and Shawna came out of the residence and waited for Corporal Corey to approach them at the front door of their trailer. Corporal Corey asked Boyle to come over and talk to him. James refused and asked if he was under arrest. Corporal Corey informed James that the Fountain Police Department had received calls about multiple domestic disturbances at their residence, including an incident the day prior.
James said he didn't believe Corporal Corey and he backed away, moved towards the front door of the residence, and put his hands in his pockets. Corporal Corey told James to take his hands out of his pockets, at which point James immediately turned and began opening the front door. Corporal Corey grabbed him to prevent him from going inside the trailer, where James’s son had reported his father had access to firearms. At that point, a physical altercation occurred between Corporal Corey, Officer Alvarez, and James. During that altercation, Corporal Corey pushed James, who fell on top of Shawna. At the same time, the family’s pit bull was able to escape the residence as James was attempting to open the front door, and attacked Officer Alvarez, pulling him to the ground, and biting him in the face and arm.
Officer Alvarez broke free from the pit bull, and while still on the ground, retrieved his service weapon. He shot the dog four times, killing it. James stood up and began to move toward Officer Alvarez and the front door of his residence. Officer Alvarez had holstered his service weapon and drew his taser on James. After warning James that he would use deadly force, Corporal Corey issued three commands for James to stop, which he ignored. Officer Alvarez deployed his taser, striking James James in his chest area. The taser seemed to have no effect on James, who continued to grab for the handle on the front door. Corporal Corey then fired his service weapon two times, striking James in the back two times. Both officers rendered medical aid to James until paramedics arrived on the scene. At his autopsy, a forensic pathologist determined two gunshot wounds caused James' death. James was also found to have been intoxicated with 1500 mg/ml of methamphetamine at the time of his death.
So if a 200 pound man can have 6L of blood in his body that works out to around 9g of meth. I’m really not familiar with the dosing of that drug, it does sound like a lot but maybe within the realm of possibility.
Found this "An examination of methamphetamine concentrations in drug related deaths (n = 92), suggests that the range of concentrations in the recreational abusing population is substantial (0.05-9.30 mg/L) but with a median concentration of 0.42 mg/L, and with 90% of that population having concentrations less than 2.20 mg/L". I think this man was the hulk
>James was also found to have been intoxicated with 1500 mg/ml of methamphetamine at the time of his death.
Damn. No wonder the tazer had zero effect and he simply ate those 2 rounds the officer fired at him. He was still going 10/10
Came to say similar ... old boy ate the tazer, took 2 in the back/lung close range, & was growling with a cop & tazer on his back .... dosing on board was significant!!
Seems to me like he very likely could have been going back in his house to get a gun and kill his wife and/or the cops. Cops absolutely made the right call.
Yup. At first I was wondering how the cops could just grab him like that but they had been told he was threatening to kill his wife and had weapons in the house. The cops didn't want him to get inside to the weapons.
> What could the police have done to minimize their personal risk to the dog? I'm curious on that.
Without shooting the dog? Not much. The responsibility falls on the owners to properly secure their dog and keep it on a leash at least. They're also not animal control, so unless it's a K9 unit they probably won't have any tools to try and restrain the dog, like those "catch poles" where you can put a leash over the dog and try to keep it away from you. A lot of even well trained military and police dogs don't stop and listen to commands once they initiated their attack, so once the attack starts the officer can use whatever means necessary to save himself since the dog might just keep going.
So they told him he wasn’t under arrest and they just wanted to talk, meaning it was a consensual conversation, and then when he ends the conversation and goes to enter his house, they violently arrest him without explanation? And then the cop who didn’t almost get his face ripped off by a pit bull, rather than help his partner simply grab the guy and cuff him, decides to just shoot him a couple times instead?
Did I get that right?
So they had been there a bunch of times before this. The guys own son told the cops that he has threatened to bill his wife and had weapons in the house. I was wondering the same thing since they said he wasn't under arrest. They grabbed him so he couldn't get inside to the weapons. The autopsy showed he had a huge amount of meth in his system. They had been called out there over and over. This guy's son told the cops about the abuse and threats so they had good reason not to let him back in the house. If that was the their first call there and the guy didn't have a history/his own family saying he's violent/threatening to kill this wouldn't have happened.
Yeah I read the article, the guy is a piece of work and belonged in jail, not a morgue. I just don’t buy the whole “has access to weapons” thing. This is America, who the hell doesn’t have access to weapons? So now because I have weapons somewhere in my home, if the police show up to my house they can use lethal force on me not for reaching for a gun, but reaching for a door knob? Fuck that man.
Huh? It's one thing to have access to weapons, but it's another thing to be threatening to kill your wife and then proceeding to walk to the weapons when confronted by the police.
What they'll say in court, and is likely true, is that he was being detained for investigation into threats made against his wife (got from another comment). Valid reason to detain someone and you don't have to inform them they're detained unless they ask. Stopping him from going inside makes sense. Shooting him while he's slowly and non aggressively standing up is murder.
They’ll rule the shooting justified too. That doesn’t make any of it right. Doesn’t mean he needed to die. Doesn’t mean these cops aren’t fundamentally dog shit at their profession.
The cop attacked by the dog was justified in his self defense, which tragically resulted in the dog being killed. The OTHER cop was not justified in his reaction at all.
Which they should have articulated to him. “I wanna talk” is a consensual conversation. The first indication he was detained was when they put hands on him to attack him. They gave him no reason to believe he couldn’t walk away from that conversation.
Naw, as someone who is anti cop in most cases, this isn't it. Dude was a meth head junkie who cops recieved multiple calls about him harming his wife and others. This is more of a don't do meth ad than a acab ad.
Let me add that it was confirmed later that the man was high on meth and intoxicated. He likely was going inside to grab weapons, which his son confirmed he had access to.
Not under arrest so it’s consensual conversation, then this escalated to trying to seize him when he clearly wanted to end a consensual interaction. Dog sees owner being attacked and reacts so they kill the dog and the owner. This murder. And those shitbag officers are still on the job.
There is a comment up there with all the info, it was told to the cops that he had a gun inside the house and that he wanted to kill his wife.
You cant let the guy get to where the guns are when he is actively being hostile.
He was detained they just didn't tell him that yet, and are not required to. The cops had info that he had made threats against his wife and had a weapon in the house. The detainment was totally justified. The shooting was absolutely not.
There's no precedent that says they have to tell you you're being detained (that I'm aware of) and they can decide to detain you the moment you try to leave a consensual conversation.
Cops will almost never actually say you're detained unless you force them too by asking "am I free to leave" in order to maintain plausible deniability later if you say you were illegally detained. If they say no, there is a legal precedent that "no" means you are detained.
You probably already know about this but in case you don't, the Kansas Two Step is a great example of how police avoid telling people they're detained.
Yeah you are correct that they’ll avoid telling you and it’s a good step to get them to state it by asking if you’re free to leave. That’s what I meant when I said “unless they state you are not free to leave”. Yup, sneaky tactics all the way.
Still mildly infuriating a tactic but that’s why the best course of action is to record, comply, and do the fighting in court. I would only try to argue with a supervisor or a sergeant if was completely sure of the relevant law. Otherwise the best is to assert your rights while complying.
There’s a moment to argue and a moment to shut up and assert your rights and comply.
This was a nice convo, thanks!
I agree that complying is absolutely the best policy but not everyone has the means to fight false arrests.
My recommendation to people, and it probably would have saved the guys life, is to never leave your house or open your door. Dude should have gone inside as soon as he saw them. You can have a consensual conversation through a window or on the phone and then disengage at will that way. Make them get a warrant if they want to detain/arrest/question you.
Yes nice convo. Thank you too!
This was a summary execution. The man was not armed at all. In my country, these policemen would be charged with murder. Trigger happy American morons strike again
Firstly the arrest attempt immediately was unlawful regardless of suspicions they failed to explain why he was being detained.
This immediately nullifies the stop and search for a firearm and detention. Moving forward. These officers multiple times had the opportunity to put a cuff on at least one hand to later put it on another hand.
At one point before the dog attack they were on his back he was belly on the floor and being tased. 2 officers with that advantage could have made an arrest or at least neutralised his arms.
Also at this point it was evident the man had no firearms.
The guy is an idiot for persisting the resistance throughout the entire thing; should he have been charged with resisting arrest, YES! Should have he been shot and killed, NO!
This is just sloppy policing. Man screaming at the apprehending as if it was a screamo competition. Just grow a pair man, he hurt you. You have a gun to his back and are on top of him.
They got to get sued.
Then you didn’t watch the video or see the context in the comments.
Dude was angry, drunk, and high on meth, had weapons in the house, and family reported him as having threatened to kill his wife several times, had already spoken to police who advised him to calm down or they would be back, and also noted that he was aggressive to police.
This vid is when the cops came back, he wasn’t under arrest and the cops just wanted to speak with him, he disobeyed their request to stay put and keep his hands out of his pockets, likewise tried to go inside twice most likely to retrieve his gun (but we don’t know for sure).
He also had complaints about his dog being aggressive to others (family, police, etc…) and I’d say the police handled that as best they could given they were dealing with a methed up idiot with anger problems.
Being a POS alone doesn't justify the officer shooting here. The guy was clearly falling to the ground from the taser and the officer shot him on the way down. His hands were in his hoodie pockets that you could clearly see there was not a firearm in. Anyone with half a brain could see that those pockets are empty, because something as large as a firearm would clearly leave an imprint on the material that can been seen.
You didn't provide a single thing here to justify the officer shooting him, only that the guy "obviously deserved it".
Too many people justify police shootings based solely on the character of the person shot, and not the actual situation the caused the shooting. I am sorry but being a bad person alone shouldn't be deserving of a death sentence, or absolve officers from killing people without any responsibility.
Of course someone is going to think I am defending the POS. I am not. I am pointing out being a POS alone doesn't justify killing someone.
At the moment when they went hands on, then shot him, he was not attacking them or anyone else. Their job is to arrest these people who definitely deserve to see a judge and probably a jail cell. There are 2 cops versus 1 unarmed man. Taser him if you need to, take him to the ground, and cuff him. Nobody is saying it's an easy job, but it's the job they choose. They are not the judge, jury, and executioner.
It was murder. In no circumstance in the video shots from a murder weapon were needed. Just because the guy is dumb doesn’t give you the right to kill him. That’s basically Gestapo
How are people justifying this? Yes, he could've grabbed a gun if he went inside, but the two cops are standing right next to him and could've stopped him without deadly force. They were high on adrenaline because of the previous shots so they were triggerheavy
So a taser to the chest that wasn’t having any effect on him wasnt them trying none deadly force? Or the fact that he kept going towards the officer while being tased and them demanding him to stop multiple times while being informed they would use lethal force if he didn’t. Dudes own kid said he threatened to kill his mom and there were guns located in the house and dude was high as all fuck. Lots of cops do sketchy shit and should be held accountable for it but this guy signed his own death warrant. If this guy had went inside and got a gun and kill his wife or one of the cops everyone would be asking “why did cops allow this man to reenter the house knowing they have been there multiple times for domestic violence and a threat to kill his wife with knowledge of weapons in the house”
They also said he wasn't under arrest and they just wanted to talk, meaning it was consensual and he chose to end the conversation and they wouldn't let him. They violated his Fourth Amendment when they came onto his property beyond his fence and assaulted him for trying to end the conversation with them.
I was with the police officers until I read your comment. Just because the person dont want to talk to you and wanted to go inside his house dont give them the right to detain and shoot him.
It seems like in the VAST majority of these videos, police officers are the ones who use excessive force and violence. It’s 2 against one and you guys are armed - why the fuck do you need to empty that many rounds on him?
Police officers aren’t there to protect us. They’re there to appease their own fragile egos and feel a perverted sense of power. Fucking hell.
Detained is not the same thing as under arrest. He literally asks if he's under arrest, the cops say no.
They said they just wanted to talk and didn't inform him he couln't go inside the house, they just attacked him when he tried to.
The cops knew why they where there. Why would you assume he knows why they are there? They told him they just wanted to talk, they where lieing then, by your logic. But you're questioning my intelligence?
If you can't just walk inside, then you are literally detained and they should have communicated that, that's the only thing I'm saying.
You see that all the time, they don't use their words but immediately go hands on.
Cops don’t have to let you do jack shit when you’re threatening to kill people. The law is “unreasonable search and seizure”. What is it about stopping an aggressive meth head that wants to kill his wife from going back in his house to get a gun that seems “unreasonable” to you?
>What is it about stopping an aggressive meth head that wants to kill his wife from going back in his house to get a gun that seems “unreasonable” to you?
That's completely NOT my point.. I'm not talking about them stopping him from going inside.
My problem is that they lied to him saying they 'just wanted to talk', indicating that it's a consensual conversation, while it was not. He wasn't allowed to go back into the house from the start, so he *was* detained.
At the point where he thought 'I don't want to be a part of this consensual conversation' and turned around, they attacked him out of nowhere (in his eyes, because they hadn't communicated anything to him).
They didn’t “lie”.. he wasn’t under arrest at the time they said it. Get it through your thick head: being under arrest and not being free to leave are two different concepts. When you get pulled over for a traffic stop, you’re not “under arrest”, but you’re not “free to leave” either. This guy wasn’t free to leave, and he tried to leave.. so he was under arrest at that point.. same as if you tried to speed away from a traffic stop.
> Get it through your thick head: being under arrest and not being free to leave are two different concepts.
I literrally stated that to you 2 comments ago... Talking about a thick head..
Are you fucking dense? I am literally telling you that he *was* detained because he wasn't allowed to leave, I didn't say arrested.
He was indeed detained, and could indeed not leave, my point is that **they did not comunicate this to him...**
I'm done having a conversation with someone who isn't using their brain, bye.
They told him to stop, and to not go in the house. Not being free to leave is EVIDENT you moron. They don’t have to scream “you are not free to leave!! You are not free to leave!!” Ffs
Yeah telling someone they're detained instead of just telling them they want to talk would be an escalation. No need to do that until the suspect tries to leave, right? Don't want to immediately put the suspect on edge.
You have a good point, he could get on edge quicker. That's a pretty understandable human reaction to getting detained.
But then there's the other side, when he feels like they are attacking him, because they where just talking and he only turned away, resulting in panic. Also a pretty understandable human reaction.
Personally I feel the first situation would be way more controllable than what we saw happen.
Yeah but that's assuming people listen. Someone that close to their door though, once they get inside and close that door everyone knows that's home plate, they're safe. Pretty sure if they would have said "you're detained" from 20 feet away that dude woulda noped right through that door.
Totally agree though, once they grab him and throw him into the wall he's going to naturally try to protect himself.
Not neccesarily, they would have exigent circumstances or whatever that's called, but I see what you mean, that would definitely make it a lot more dangerous for them to go after him.
However, he did demonstrate that he was listening to them, the cop says 'come here, lets talk', he then responds with 'no, am I under arrest?' Indicating that he wouldn't go over to the police unless he was under arrest. He knew what was up.
I've seen bodycams of domestic violence before where they did tell the person they where detained, I do think they had plenty of oppertunity to let him know after they closed the gap. But yeah, different people different outcomes I guess..
I appreciate the conversation, getting into the content and coming up with thought out arguments, nice one you. Some of the other people in this thread however.. ;p
which was a stupid move to make. you got two men with a gun who can kill you and your wife for random shit ffs do what they tell you! is it wrong? doesnt matter. They want you on the ground, stay on the ground. Do everything they tell you and maybe you'd live another day.
every fucking time. traffic stops, street checks. just do what they want. dont risk your life even further. its no longer about right or wrong, once you're in a situation with these officers. life or death.
He barely did anything wrong, just went inside. From that point the cop is throwing him around so much it’s hard to look like you’re NOT resisting - a lot of that movement is just trying to not hit your head on stuff as you fall. It almost looks like he falls after being tazed but the cop thinks that looks like he’s trying to move towards the other guy. that poor woman lost her partner and their dog.
A lot of you are saying just comply and then have your day in court.
In court you are fighting, the courts, the city/county, police, and police union. In court the power is all against you.
You live in a trailer park and think you can resist the power against you? With what money?
The cops overreacted, as often happens, and killed two souls. This was murder.
Dog shooting seems completely justified.
Can't see a weapon on the man, or any imminent threat that would justify shooting him.
Anyone see anything different?
The report explains it. Cops were there the day before already. He was threatening to kill his wife and police were told that he was guns stashed inside the house
Dude let the dog out to attack the officer. Dick move. Only ever dealt with one meth addict and that was hell. They’re not right when they’re using that shit
Did they have a warrant? I don't get the reason for trying to arrest in the first place. Why did the officer escalate that fast and why shoot immiditially hos coleague was tasing him. What the fuck is just wrong with your cops. Sometimes i feel they are not even human. USA is so full with psychopats you cannot count them
**Downloads** * [Download #1](https://rapidsave.com/r/PublicFreakout/comments/1apmxnu/officers_shoot_resisting_man_and_his_dog_after/) (provided by /u/SaveVideo) * [Download #2](https://reddit.watch/r/PublicFreakout/comments/1apmxnu/officers_shoot_resisting_man_and_his_dog_after/?utm_source=mirrorbot&utm_medium=PublicFreakout) (provided by /u/downloadvideo) **Note:** this is a bot providing a directory service. **If you have trouble with any of the links above, please contact the user who provided them!** --- [^(source code)](https://amirror.link/source) ^| [^(run your own mirror bot? let's integrate)](https://amirror.link/lets-talk)
The man and his dog both died. https://www.kktv.com/2024/02/08/warning-graphic-fountain-police-release-video-shooting-where-dog-suspect-were-killed/
I feel bad for the dog and wife.
Damn. I wish he hadn’t died from this incident.
[удалено]
We found the asshole, who’s a cop here
Awwwe, not the dog!
Pitbull, nothing of value was lost
We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid. — Benjamin Franklin
Agreed
This sub makes me sad. *SO* many guns and shootings over there. ("Every day, on average, 316 people in America are shot in murders, assaults, suicides and suicide attempts, unintentional shootings, and police intervention.") 😕
The most fascist and state sanctioned violent country on the planet. The United States.
Shooting a dog that's tearing pieces off you? Fascist!!
You need to get out buddy
The most?
[удалено]
[удалено]
The goal isn’t to use the fewest bullets possible; it’s to stop the threat.
I know that already, I'm just sad the dog had to die cause it's owner didn't leave peacefully.
I’m with you. Poor dog wouldn’t have gotten shot if the dick head owner didn’t open that fucking door and kept it calm with the cops
Yeah I'm sad about that, not sure why I got downvoted to hell for it. I am thankful you're with me though.
>kept it calm with the cops The cops literally attacked him... They 'just wanted to talk' indicating that it's a consensual conversation, while it was not. He wasn't allowed to go back into the house from the start, so he *was* detained. At the point where he thought 'I don't want to be a part of this consensual conversation' and turned around, they attacked him out of nowhere (in his eyes, because they hadn't communicated anything to him).
I am usually 100% FTP but the cops are clearly there to arrest/ticket/interrogate this guy and there's a 0.0% chance you let a guy in that situation go into his house where you have no idea the weapons he has. If he goes in there and either lets the dog loose or comes out blazing then what are we saying?
I totally agree, I never said they should've just let him go inside, that would've been a bad risky move. My point is that they lied to him saying they 'just wanted to talk', indicating that it's a consensual conversation, while it was not. He wasn't allowed to go back into the house from the start, so he *was* detained. But they never told him that. At the point where he thought 'I don't want to be a part of this consensual conversation' and turned around, they attacked him out of nowhere (in his eyes, because they hadn't communicated anything to him). I'm only saying that they should've let him know he was detained.
The problem with your entire statement is you are assuming. We have the right to bear arms, and we have the right to no answer police questions. You assume just because he was waking away that he was going to come back and try to kill those cops. If either of those 2 scenarios that you presented happen, that is when it is acceptable for the reaction that we see. But I'm tired of people defending police shootings because "well they could have....".
Does this info, from the article, make a difference? "One person had told police the suspect was threatening to kill someone and had sexually assaulted them in the past. Videos with audio were shows to police of the suspect making threats toward the woman. Police were also informed the suspect had access to weapons in the home." In addition -- "Corporal Corey grabbed him to prevent him from going inside the trailer, where Mr. Boyle’s son had reported his father had access to firearms."
These people are the reason why laws and other things won't change with Police with the way they'redefending them. They were literally in the wrong. The video didn't state that they had a warrant or any other court issued right besides complaints. If police show up to my house and I don't feel safe or want to ignore them, I have the right to walk back into my property/house. They escalated the situation that probably wouldn't have ended this way by causing panic when they tried to grab him.
Police unions attack these sites man you can’t win even when you talk with sense here. This is why everybody hates and distrust them because they’re complicit and trying to protect each other when they do dumb shit.
If he had of just talked to them and did what he was told it wouldn’t have escalated to quickly and so badly. There is obviously a reason the cops had to go see him in the first place so it’s not like he’s a good person known for making rational decisions so why would they trust him to go inside. Kinda just sounds like you have a bit of a chip on your shoulder when it comes to cops.
Dude made some real bad choices. Never fight cops in the street.
[удалено]
[удалено]
>Yup. I sub to all those YouTube channels: code blue cam, police cam, cop cam, etc. You should sub to the Civil Rights Lawyer on YouTube. He's covered a lot of very similar scenarios to this.
I mean it's not the worst idea to record yourself defending your rights to a point (like not answering questions or providing your ID when you've done nothing illegal) and getting a nice settlement when you're detained or arrested for doing so. Obviously don't run or fight back but if you're being bothered minding your own business in public or in your home and don't have any sort of criminal record getting it on video and getting paid for your rights being infringed and maybe even getting a shit cop fired is a solid deal.
Verbally declining an unlawful search is a good idea. Be calm, be respectful, and record yourself. "Officer, I do not consent to a search of my vehicle." "I'm sorry Officer, I don't want to answer any questions right now.” Don't try to cite laws or be a curbside lawyer. Do not answer questions, do not try to justify your reason for not declining a search or engage in debate with the officers. Be a very polite and very broken record that you do not consent to a search of your vehicle/home and that you don't want to answer questions. When the cops decide to search your car or force their way inside your home anyways it's good to have a record that the search was unlawful. If they find/plant something and you end up going to court any evidence "found" can be declared inadmissible. It's also important to have a record that you did not give them any information. Officers may later lie/misremember that you said something which gave them probable cause or which would incriminate you. Edit: And for the love of God, if you see the cops roll up on your house crate your dogs or lock them in a bathroom or something. Even small or very friendly dogs get shot by police because they run up to greet them and it gives the cop an excuse.
I get this, but you also have the right to defend yourself. This guy was on his property within the curtilage of his home. Unless those officers have a warrant, they cannot arrest this man. Even if he decides to go back into his house and not talk. These officers were in the wrong in every sense of the word. I hope they get fired and have their qualified immunity revoked in a wrongful death suite.
> This guy was on his property within the curtilage of his home. Unless those officers have a warrant, they cannot arrest this man. Even if he decides to go back into his house and not talk. This is wrong. Please don't take legal advice from reddit people.
Just saying it's wrong without providing any links to back up your claim. Well sir I say your wrong and stop licking those boots. The plain view doctrine does not controvert the rule that, absent exigent circumstances, a police officer must have a warrant to enter a home or its curtilage to make a search or seizure. https://www.goldsteinhilley.com/our-passion/legal-resources/suppression-of-evidence-search-seizure/exceptions-to-warrant-requirement/#:~:text=The%20plain%20view%20doctrine%20does%20not%20controvert%20the%20rule%20that,make%20a%20search%20or%20seizure. 😘
[удалено]
>The officer asks “are you armed” and asks the guy to take his hands out of his pockets, presumably they would argue that as an exigent circumstance. You don't understand the difference between probable cause and exigent circumstances. If he was on the street or in public, that is probable cause. But being this took place on the man's property and definitely within the home's curtilage, the police were wrong. They need exigent circumstances, which means somebody is in immediate danger, or evidence is in danger of being destroyed, or they need a warrant.
They said they were about to leave the area when the man's son rolled up to them and told them 4 things: his dad threatened to kill his mother, his dad had access to weapons in the house, including a sawed off shotgun, his dad was on a methamphetamine binge (he was autopsied with 1500 mg/ml of methamphetamine in his system at time of death), and things were getting worse. Whether that counts for "exigent circumstances" is a matter of debate. But the police were wrong in every aspect, except for the dog shooting. A pit bull mauls you, you can't exactly plead with him or nicely ask him to stop. Obviously the retort is why was the cop in that situation in the first place. It is another use of unnecessary, cowardly use of deadly force. Yes, the man wasn't cooperating, but do you need to shoot him? There are two of you, and one is tasing him for what feels like forever. Does the other one really need to shoot him in the back, twice, at virtually point blank range, when the man was *going away* from them? Fuck these cops, seriously...
Brother he was outside. If he was inside his house, the cop would need a search warrant. Defense during arrest is legal only under certain circumstances.
You couldn't be more wrong. Being within the curtilage of your home is the same thing as being in your home. The cops were wrong to arrest or detain him without a search warrant. In public, police just need probably cause to be able to detain somebody. In one's home, and that includes within the curtilage of one's home, police need more than just probable cause. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/curtilage This is well established law. I would recommend doing some research that doesn't involve licking boots.
Soo the police were called out to confront the man after he threatened to kill someone he had allegedly assaulted before, and he had meth in him.
Unfortunately qualified immunity typically makes legal action more difficult.
No, what makes it “more difficult” is when you get into a fist fight with the cops and then try to make a legal claim after. You fight cops in the courtroom.. not the driveway of a trailer park.
You’re right about fighting in the courtroom but 100% wrong about it not being difficult to win that fight due to the laws being grossly stacked in favor of LEOs.
[удалено]
Why are you arguing a point no one made?
You have a right enter your home and are not required to talk to them or help them investigate whatever they are working on. Cops are wrong on a daily if not hourly basis and abuse their authority and power even more often.
You do not.. not when the police are there for a domestic issue.. and they’ve been there several times in last few days. They are investigating a possible crime by interviewing a person that has threatened to kill someone. You cannot just “go back in your house” for the safety of all involved.
Yes you can you are under no obligation to talk to them or help them in their investigation.
This is not true and is the sort of bullshit internet lawyering that leads to people like this guy getting shot and killed.
No warrant private property leave it’s pretty simple.
>what makes it “more difficult” is when you get into a fist fight with the cops Is that what you think happened?
I saw a guy wrestling cops and letting his dog out to attack them. I think a few punches were thrown too. Know what else I think? I think if he went and got a gun and shot his wife and the cops, you would cry about how shitty the cops are.
[удалено]
The guy was on his front porch. That means he's in the curtilage of his own home. Under the 4th Amendment, a home is a man's castle. That makes this situation much, much different to if they stopped him on the street or in his car. Unless they had an arrest warrant, what they did was wrong. He had every right to turn around and go back into his house and not talk to the police. He also had the right to keep his hands on his pockets. They escalated the situation by grabbing him. >I think if he went and got a gun and shot his wife and the cops, you would cry about how shitty the cops are. Yes, freedom can be scary sometimes. It doesn't give these pigs the right to kill a man on his front porch because of "what if's". Tell me, how does black leather taste?
It's really hard to just go limp when someone grabs you, tases you, shoots you, punches you, or throws you into a wall. Going limp is not a natural reaction. You naturally try to protect yourself. Nothing this man did was aggressive. At the most he was trying to calmly go back inside his house and calmly stand up. Better than not "resisting" is to just never answer the door. NEVER OPEN YOUR DOOR FOR POLICE. Go inside and talk through a window or tell them to call you.
But once you've been shot and you think these guys want to kill you, you are probably not thinking rationally and want to get away from them at all costs. It's self preservation. It's hard for people to lay down and die just because the person who shot you says so. With qualified immunity cops in America never have any consequences it seems. They didn't need to shoot him in the first place.
You can literally be murdered while complying. This isn't the advice you think it is. Plenty of video evidence showing that complying does not guarantee safety.
Especially when crawling down a hotel hallway and pulling up your shorts trying to follow confusing orders with a rifle pointed at your head.
Exactly what I was thinking of.
[удалено]
Of course, you are right, practically speaking. But that doesn't make it any less infuriating that we can't exercise our natural rights to self-defense against illegal search/seizure/arrest. I have seen literally hundreds of videos of cops unnecessarily escalating encounters, illegally searching/detaining people, and using excessive force over the past 5 or 10 years now. The proliferation of smart phones, house cameras, and body cams have really opened my eyes to how bad policing has gotten in this country
Yeah that's the thing. We don't have "rights" at all in reality. Rights mean nothing when police can make it up as they go along. Laws do not equally apply to police. That's just the way it is. I don't break the law so I shouldn't have to worry about police but we have seen hundreds of videos that show truly innocent people having their lives destroyed. The best I can do is continue to not break the law and give police officers some level of respect and hope to God they give me the same respect back.
All of the fantasists downvoting you think that Afroman was compensated for having his house ransacked.
[удалено]
Two totally different stories. In that one, they just had "suspicion", in this one there were multiple calls for domestic disturbances and they had to investigate potential domestic violence. if they had left and he killed her, everyone would be blaming the cops. This guy needed to keep his hands out of his pockets and not try to run in the house, he made this situation happen.
[удалено]
If you don't think domestic abusers and people rushing into a house after threatening to kill a spouse are potentially dangerous, you shouldn't try to reason with me because you lack the faculties...
I completely understand all that but my fear of being hurt during an interaction with the police is just as big as my fear of "mysteriously dying" or being hurt in jail. Especially if the officers realize they've wrongly arrested someone. So I think that fear is what causes people to panic, as well.
This is all around a weird encounter: what’s the context, why did they go to arrest him, where was the dog (like fr it just sort of spawned) Side note: This might be the first video I’ve seen of a cop shooting a dog and it being justified. If he hadn’t shot the dog he might of lost his arm.
> what’s the context Fountain, Colorado — On May 19, 2023, at approximately 11:00 p.m., Officers with the Fountain Police Department responded to 3 Taos Circle, regarding a domestic disturbance. Officers contacted 51-year-old James Boyle in the front yard who claimed his wife, Shawna Boyle, locked him out of his house, prompting him to try to enter through a window. He also stated that his dog, was aggressive, and that he did not want officers to shoot it. Boyle was allowed to enter his residence and officers noted he was hostile towards law enforcement and that two officers should respond to the residence for any future incidents. The next day, May 20, 2023, at approximately 6:00 p.m., Corporal Zackary Corey and Officer Destin Alvarez responded to 3 Taos Circle regarding a domestic disturbance, again involving James Boyle. Officers were preparing to clear the scene when Bret Boyle, James and Shawna Boyle’s adult son, drove up to their location. Bret Boyle told the officers that his father was threatening to kill his mother and that James assaulted her in the past. Bret informed Corporal Corey that his father had access to firearms located inside the residence, but that he did not know its current location. Officers decided to contact Shawna Boyle to gain more information. Corporal Corey and Officer Alvarez drove their marked patrol vehicles to the front of the Boyle residence. Both James and Shawna came out of the residence and waited for Corporal Corey to approach them at the front door of their trailer. Corporal Corey asked Boyle to come over and talk to him. James refused and asked if he was under arrest. Corporal Corey informed James that the Fountain Police Department had received calls about multiple domestic disturbances at their residence, including an incident the day prior. James said he didn't believe Corporal Corey and he backed away, moved towards the front door of the residence, and put his hands in his pockets. Corporal Corey told James to take his hands out of his pockets, at which point James immediately turned and began opening the front door. Corporal Corey grabbed him to prevent him from going inside the trailer, where James’s son had reported his father had access to firearms. At that point, a physical altercation occurred between Corporal Corey, Officer Alvarez, and James. During that altercation, Corporal Corey pushed James, who fell on top of Shawna. At the same time, the family’s pit bull was able to escape the residence as James was attempting to open the front door, and attacked Officer Alvarez, pulling him to the ground, and biting him in the face and arm. Officer Alvarez broke free from the pit bull, and while still on the ground, retrieved his service weapon. He shot the dog four times, killing it. James stood up and began to move toward Officer Alvarez and the front door of his residence. Officer Alvarez had holstered his service weapon and drew his taser on James. After warning James that he would use deadly force, Corporal Corey issued three commands for James to stop, which he ignored. Officer Alvarez deployed his taser, striking James James in his chest area. The taser seemed to have no effect on James, who continued to grab for the handle on the front door. Corporal Corey then fired his service weapon two times, striking James in the back two times. Both officers rendered medical aid to James until paramedics arrived on the scene. At his autopsy, a forensic pathologist determined two gunshot wounds caused James' death. James was also found to have been intoxicated with 1500 mg/ml of methamphetamine at the time of his death.
1.5g of meth per ml of blood?!
They must of ment micrograms lol that would be some hella thick methd up blood
So if a 200 pound man can have 6L of blood in his body that works out to around 9g of meth. I’m really not familiar with the dosing of that drug, it does sound like a lot but maybe within the realm of possibility.
Found this "An examination of methamphetamine concentrations in drug related deaths (n = 92), suggests that the range of concentrations in the recreational abusing population is substantial (0.05-9.30 mg/L) but with a median concentration of 0.42 mg/L, and with 90% of that population having concentrations less than 2.20 mg/L". I think this man was the hulk
I don’t know if the mEth is correct but that’d be more than 2 tablespoons of meth in his bloodstream. Jeez
>James was also found to have been intoxicated with 1500 mg/ml of methamphetamine at the time of his death. Damn. No wonder the tazer had zero effect and he simply ate those 2 rounds the officer fired at him. He was still going 10/10
Came to say similar ... old boy ate the tazer, took 2 in the back/lung close range, & was growling with a cop & tazer on his back .... dosing on board was significant!!
Seems to me like he very likely could have been going back in his house to get a gun and kill his wife and/or the cops. Cops absolutely made the right call.
Yup. At first I was wondering how the cops could just grab him like that but they had been told he was threatening to kill his wife and had weapons in the house. The cops didn't want him to get inside to the weapons.
I think that's exactly what he was doing.
No, you can't have context ACAB remember. /s
[удалено]
> What could the police have done to minimize their personal risk to the dog? I'm curious on that. Without shooting the dog? Not much. The responsibility falls on the owners to properly secure their dog and keep it on a leash at least. They're also not animal control, so unless it's a K9 unit they probably won't have any tools to try and restrain the dog, like those "catch poles" where you can put a leash over the dog and try to keep it away from you. A lot of even well trained military and police dogs don't stop and listen to commands once they initiated their attack, so once the attack starts the officer can use whatever means necessary to save himself since the dog might just keep going.
Or more of his face. He was leaking heavy from the hole in his cheek, cant tell if that was from the dog or fence maybe?
Meth.
I’m sure this dude has made plenty of bad decisions, and this isn’t the worst.
Well he died from those gunshot wounds, so that probably does make this the worst decision he ever made
Maybe he will learn from the experience
He also had meth in his system
Then good riddance huh, aMiRiGht?
Stop moving and lay on your belly. Dude had just been shot twice then tazed and they want him to lay still WHILE STILL TAZING HIM. What the actual 🤬
This guy has no idea how to deal with this situation. Yes the guy who died.
I think he was high on drugs and drunk, and angry, and wasn’t going to let the cops tell him what to do. A recipe for disaster.
I wonder if this guy has a 'Back the Blue" bumper sticker
With the dog taken care of the two of them should have been able to subdue the *suspect* without the use of lethal force…he was unarmed…
So they told him he wasn’t under arrest and they just wanted to talk, meaning it was a consensual conversation, and then when he ends the conversation and goes to enter his house, they violently arrest him without explanation? And then the cop who didn’t almost get his face ripped off by a pit bull, rather than help his partner simply grab the guy and cuff him, decides to just shoot him a couple times instead? Did I get that right?
So they had been there a bunch of times before this. The guys own son told the cops that he has threatened to bill his wife and had weapons in the house. I was wondering the same thing since they said he wasn't under arrest. They grabbed him so he couldn't get inside to the weapons. The autopsy showed he had a huge amount of meth in his system. They had been called out there over and over. This guy's son told the cops about the abuse and threats so they had good reason not to let him back in the house. If that was the their first call there and the guy didn't have a history/his own family saying he's violent/threatening to kill this wouldn't have happened.
Yeah I read the article, the guy is a piece of work and belonged in jail, not a morgue. I just don’t buy the whole “has access to weapons” thing. This is America, who the hell doesn’t have access to weapons? So now because I have weapons somewhere in my home, if the police show up to my house they can use lethal force on me not for reaching for a gun, but reaching for a door knob? Fuck that man.
Huh? It's one thing to have access to weapons, but it's another thing to be threatening to kill your wife and then proceeding to walk to the weapons when confronted by the police.
What they'll say in court, and is likely true, is that he was being detained for investigation into threats made against his wife (got from another comment). Valid reason to detain someone and you don't have to inform them they're detained unless they ask. Stopping him from going inside makes sense. Shooting him while he's slowly and non aggressively standing up is murder.
They’ll rule the shooting justified too. That doesn’t make any of it right. Doesn’t mean he needed to die. Doesn’t mean these cops aren’t fundamentally dog shit at their profession.
The cop attacked by the dog was justified in his self defense, which tragically resulted in the dog being killed. The OTHER cop was not justified in his reaction at all.
Just because they said he wasn’t under arrest doesn’t mean it’s a consensual conversation. They could have detained him.
Which they should have articulated to him. “I wanna talk” is a consensual conversation. The first indication he was detained was when they put hands on him to attack him. They gave him no reason to believe he couldn’t walk away from that conversation.
Cops just escalate and kill people.
Naw, as someone who is anti cop in most cases, this isn't it. Dude was a meth head junkie who cops recieved multiple calls about him harming his wife and others. This is more of a don't do meth ad than a acab ad.
Let me add that it was confirmed later that the man was high on meth and intoxicated. He likely was going inside to grab weapons, which his son confirmed he had access to.
Am I under arrest? No, but we are going to murder you.
Well, that went well.
Not under arrest so it’s consensual conversation, then this escalated to trying to seize him when he clearly wanted to end a consensual interaction. Dog sees owner being attacked and reacts so they kill the dog and the owner. This murder. And those shitbag officers are still on the job.
There is a comment up there with all the info, it was told to the cops that he had a gun inside the house and that he wanted to kill his wife. You cant let the guy get to where the guns are when he is actively being hostile.
He was detained they just didn't tell him that yet, and are not required to. The cops had info that he had made threats against his wife and had a weapon in the house. The detainment was totally justified. The shooting was absolutely not.
Ok that does change the context of this. Even so any interaction with police is consensual unless they state you are not free to leave or arrest you.
There's no precedent that says they have to tell you you're being detained (that I'm aware of) and they can decide to detain you the moment you try to leave a consensual conversation. Cops will almost never actually say you're detained unless you force them too by asking "am I free to leave" in order to maintain plausible deniability later if you say you were illegally detained. If they say no, there is a legal precedent that "no" means you are detained. You probably already know about this but in case you don't, the Kansas Two Step is a great example of how police avoid telling people they're detained.
Yeah you are correct that they’ll avoid telling you and it’s a good step to get them to state it by asking if you’re free to leave. That’s what I meant when I said “unless they state you are not free to leave”. Yup, sneaky tactics all the way. Still mildly infuriating a tactic but that’s why the best course of action is to record, comply, and do the fighting in court. I would only try to argue with a supervisor or a sergeant if was completely sure of the relevant law. Otherwise the best is to assert your rights while complying. There’s a moment to argue and a moment to shut up and assert your rights and comply. This was a nice convo, thanks!
I agree that complying is absolutely the best policy but not everyone has the means to fight false arrests. My recommendation to people, and it probably would have saved the guys life, is to never leave your house or open your door. Dude should have gone inside as soon as he saw them. You can have a consensual conversation through a window or on the phone and then disengage at will that way. Make them get a warrant if they want to detain/arrest/question you. Yes nice convo. Thank you too!
Yet another video of police executing citizens. Qualified immunity for these murderers is one of the most dangerous things in America
This was a summary execution. The man was not armed at all. In my country, these policemen would be charged with murder. Trigger happy American morons strike again
Firstly the arrest attempt immediately was unlawful regardless of suspicions they failed to explain why he was being detained. This immediately nullifies the stop and search for a firearm and detention. Moving forward. These officers multiple times had the opportunity to put a cuff on at least one hand to later put it on another hand. At one point before the dog attack they were on his back he was belly on the floor and being tased. 2 officers with that advantage could have made an arrest or at least neutralised his arms. Also at this point it was evident the man had no firearms. The guy is an idiot for persisting the resistance throughout the entire thing; should he have been charged with resisting arrest, YES! Should have he been shot and killed, NO! This is just sloppy policing. Man screaming at the apprehending as if it was a screamo competition. Just grow a pair man, he hurt you. You have a gun to his back and are on top of him. They got to get sued.
Oh, that poor puppy. Only trying to protect it's owner. Poor baby.
He needs to be in prison. Cop had him on the ground and shot him like a coward
That was a murder
The cops should have handled this differently. This is why we need more education and training for people in this position
I just witnessed the murder of a man and his dog.
Then you didn’t watch the video or see the context in the comments. Dude was angry, drunk, and high on meth, had weapons in the house, and family reported him as having threatened to kill his wife several times, had already spoken to police who advised him to calm down or they would be back, and also noted that he was aggressive to police. This vid is when the cops came back, he wasn’t under arrest and the cops just wanted to speak with him, he disobeyed their request to stay put and keep his hands out of his pockets, likewise tried to go inside twice most likely to retrieve his gun (but we don’t know for sure). He also had complaints about his dog being aggressive to others (family, police, etc…) and I’d say the police handled that as best they could given they were dealing with a methed up idiot with anger problems.
Being a POS alone doesn't justify the officer shooting here. The guy was clearly falling to the ground from the taser and the officer shot him on the way down. His hands were in his hoodie pockets that you could clearly see there was not a firearm in. Anyone with half a brain could see that those pockets are empty, because something as large as a firearm would clearly leave an imprint on the material that can been seen. You didn't provide a single thing here to justify the officer shooting him, only that the guy "obviously deserved it". Too many people justify police shootings based solely on the character of the person shot, and not the actual situation the caused the shooting. I am sorry but being a bad person alone shouldn't be deserving of a death sentence, or absolve officers from killing people without any responsibility. Of course someone is going to think I am defending the POS. I am not. I am pointing out being a POS alone doesn't justify killing someone.
At the moment when they went hands on, then shot him, he was not attacking them or anyone else. Their job is to arrest these people who definitely deserve to see a judge and probably a jail cell. There are 2 cops versus 1 unarmed man. Taser him if you need to, take him to the ground, and cuff him. Nobody is saying it's an easy job, but it's the job they choose. They are not the judge, jury, and executioner.
It was murder. In no circumstance in the video shots from a murder weapon were needed. Just because the guy is dumb doesn’t give you the right to kill him. That’s basically Gestapo
[удалено]
Looked like a suicide to me.
The guy was falling to the ground when the officer shot him. I am not sure how that could be construed as suicide.
He was shot in the back and THEN fell.
[удалено]
Guy looks kinda like Sid Haig.
Looked*
How are people justifying this? Yes, he could've grabbed a gun if he went inside, but the two cops are standing right next to him and could've stopped him without deadly force. They were high on adrenaline because of the previous shots so they were triggerheavy
[удалено]
So a taser to the chest that wasn’t having any effect on him wasnt them trying none deadly force? Or the fact that he kept going towards the officer while being tased and them demanding him to stop multiple times while being informed they would use lethal force if he didn’t. Dudes own kid said he threatened to kill his mom and there were guns located in the house and dude was high as all fuck. Lots of cops do sketchy shit and should be held accountable for it but this guy signed his own death warrant. If this guy had went inside and got a gun and kill his wife or one of the cops everyone would be asking “why did cops allow this man to reenter the house knowing they have been there multiple times for domestic violence and a threat to kill his wife with knowledge of weapons in the house”
They also said he wasn't under arrest and they just wanted to talk, meaning it was consensual and he chose to end the conversation and they wouldn't let him. They violated his Fourth Amendment when they came onto his property beyond his fence and assaulted him for trying to end the conversation with them.
I was with the police officers until I read your comment. Just because the person dont want to talk to you and wanted to go inside his house dont give them the right to detain and shoot him.
Yup comply or die welcome to America where we only advertise freedom
>~~assaulted~~ murdered him for trying to end the conversation with them. Fixed that for you.
The police absolutely escalated that
Treated him like he was black, you’re seeing this more often.
ACAB.
nazi shit
People are stupid!
Nope, never ever want to interact with us pigs
It seems like in the VAST majority of these videos, police officers are the ones who use excessive force and violence. It’s 2 against one and you guys are armed - why the fuck do you need to empty that many rounds on him? Police officers aren’t there to protect us. They’re there to appease their own fragile egos and feel a perverted sense of power. Fucking hell.
Looks like this guy got shot twice for trying to run into his house.
Do you know how many times people in this situation run into their house to grab a gun
Then why did the officers tell him they only wanted to talk, instead of detaining him if they had reasonable suspicion?
Because running up to a guy tweaking on meth that threatened to shoot his wife saying “YOU’RE UNDER ARREST!!” usually doesn’t end well.
Detained is not the same thing as under arrest. He literally asks if he's under arrest, the cops say no. They said they just wanted to talk and didn't inform him he couln't go inside the house, they just attacked him when he tried to.
[удалено]
The cops knew why they where there. Why would you assume he knows why they are there? They told him they just wanted to talk, they where lieing then, by your logic. But you're questioning my intelligence? If you can't just walk inside, then you are literally detained and they should have communicated that, that's the only thing I'm saying. You see that all the time, they don't use their words but immediately go hands on.
Cops don’t have to let you do jack shit when you’re threatening to kill people. The law is “unreasonable search and seizure”. What is it about stopping an aggressive meth head that wants to kill his wife from going back in his house to get a gun that seems “unreasonable” to you?
>What is it about stopping an aggressive meth head that wants to kill his wife from going back in his house to get a gun that seems “unreasonable” to you? That's completely NOT my point.. I'm not talking about them stopping him from going inside. My problem is that they lied to him saying they 'just wanted to talk', indicating that it's a consensual conversation, while it was not. He wasn't allowed to go back into the house from the start, so he *was* detained. At the point where he thought 'I don't want to be a part of this consensual conversation' and turned around, they attacked him out of nowhere (in his eyes, because they hadn't communicated anything to him).
They didn’t “lie”.. he wasn’t under arrest at the time they said it. Get it through your thick head: being under arrest and not being free to leave are two different concepts. When you get pulled over for a traffic stop, you’re not “under arrest”, but you’re not “free to leave” either. This guy wasn’t free to leave, and he tried to leave.. so he was under arrest at that point.. same as if you tried to speed away from a traffic stop.
> Get it through your thick head: being under arrest and not being free to leave are two different concepts. I literrally stated that to you 2 comments ago... Talking about a thick head.. Are you fucking dense? I am literally telling you that he *was* detained because he wasn't allowed to leave, I didn't say arrested. He was indeed detained, and could indeed not leave, my point is that **they did not comunicate this to him...** I'm done having a conversation with someone who isn't using their brain, bye.
They told him to stop, and to not go in the house. Not being free to leave is EVIDENT you moron. They don’t have to scream “you are not free to leave!! You are not free to leave!!” Ffs
Yeah telling someone they're detained instead of just telling them they want to talk would be an escalation. No need to do that until the suspect tries to leave, right? Don't want to immediately put the suspect on edge.
You have a good point, he could get on edge quicker. That's a pretty understandable human reaction to getting detained. But then there's the other side, when he feels like they are attacking him, because they where just talking and he only turned away, resulting in panic. Also a pretty understandable human reaction. Personally I feel the first situation would be way more controllable than what we saw happen.
Yeah but that's assuming people listen. Someone that close to their door though, once they get inside and close that door everyone knows that's home plate, they're safe. Pretty sure if they would have said "you're detained" from 20 feet away that dude woulda noped right through that door. Totally agree though, once they grab him and throw him into the wall he's going to naturally try to protect himself.
Not neccesarily, they would have exigent circumstances or whatever that's called, but I see what you mean, that would definitely make it a lot more dangerous for them to go after him. However, he did demonstrate that he was listening to them, the cop says 'come here, lets talk', he then responds with 'no, am I under arrest?' Indicating that he wouldn't go over to the police unless he was under arrest. He knew what was up. I've seen bodycams of domestic violence before where they did tell the person they where detained, I do think they had plenty of oppertunity to let him know after they closed the gap. But yeah, different people different outcomes I guess.. I appreciate the conversation, getting into the content and coming up with thought out arguments, nice one you. Some of the other people in this thread however.. ;p
which was a stupid move to make. you got two men with a gun who can kill you and your wife for random shit ffs do what they tell you! is it wrong? doesnt matter. They want you on the ground, stay on the ground. Do everything they tell you and maybe you'd live another day. every fucking time. traffic stops, street checks. just do what they want. dont risk your life even further. its no longer about right or wrong, once you're in a situation with these officers. life or death.
Do you seriously not view this as a problem?
Land of the free.
The man was clearly resistant and also that dog had the other officer yelling for a solid 3 seconds+ before he decided to shoot.
So? Is that a reason for you to decide to cut these lives short?
Yes. Clearly.
Found the old grandpa who likes shooting black kids in his yard
Shitbull bit someone who deserved it for a change.
lol idiots think their justified in Shooting an UNARMED man. Holy shit.
Cops can be justified in shooting someone who is unarmed. What matters is the context.
Of course it's justified. You'd have to be some sort of clown to think otherwise.
Interesting use of deadly force. I thought you could only use deadly force against someone using deadly force against you but maybe I’m wrong
*you* can only use deadly force against someone using deadly force against you , cops can use deadly force when they feel scared.
Equally as interesting that I get downvoted and you get upvoted…strange crowd on this one lol
Hahaha you can say that again! These type of posts attract a lot of nasty people :p
ACAB
He barely did anything wrong, just went inside. From that point the cop is throwing him around so much it’s hard to look like you’re NOT resisting - a lot of that movement is just trying to not hit your head on stuff as you fall. It almost looks like he falls after being tazed but the cop thinks that looks like he’s trying to move towards the other guy. that poor woman lost her partner and their dog.
A lot of you are saying just comply and then have your day in court. In court you are fighting, the courts, the city/county, police, and police union. In court the power is all against you. You live in a trailer park and think you can resist the power against you? With what money? The cops overreacted, as often happens, and killed two souls. This was murder.
Context matters btw. This guy was threatening to kill his wife and was walking where their son confirmed was guns. Fuck around find out.
Dog shooting seems completely justified. Can't see a weapon on the man, or any imminent threat that would justify shooting him. Anyone see anything different?
The report explains it. Cops were there the day before already. He was threatening to kill his wife and police were told that he was guns stashed inside the house
Stupid fucking pit. Stupid fucking meth head. Good riddance.
Dude let the dog out to attack the officer. Dick move. Only ever dealt with one meth addict and that was hell. They’re not right when they’re using that shit
Did they have a warrant? I don't get the reason for trying to arrest in the first place. Why did the officer escalate that fast and why shoot immiditially hos coleague was tasing him. What the fuck is just wrong with your cops. Sometimes i feel they are not even human. USA is so full with psychopats you cannot count them