Video: LA Sheriffs kill 80-year-old man in bed in meth raid gone bad

posted at 2:01 pm on February 16, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

How did an 80-year-old man end up shot to death in his own bed by Los Angeles County deputy sheriffs? Reason’s Zach Weissmuller takes an in-depth look at the death of Eugene Mallory, who died in a hail of bullets triggered by supposedly challenging the deputies with a gun in the hallway of his own home during a meth raid. Only Mallory didn’t get shot in the hallway — he got shot in his bedroom, and the bullets came before the deputy warned him to put his gun down. Did Mallory pick up the gun at all? And what were deputies doing by raiding the house in the first place? Mallory’s widow wants answers:

Deputies approached the house, and what happened next is where things get murky. The deputies said they announced their presence upon entering and were met in the hallway by the 80-year-old man, wielding a gun and stumbling towards them. The deputies later changed the story when the massive bloodstains on Mallory’s mattress indicated to investigators that he’d most likely been in bed at the time of the shooting. Investigators also found that an audio recording of the incident revealed a discrepancy in the deputies’ original narrative:

Before listening to the audio recording, [Sgt. John] Bones believed that he told Mallory to “Drop the gun” prior to the shooting. The recording revealed, however, that his commands to “Drop the gun” occurred immediately after the shooting.

When it was all over, Eugene Mallory died of six gunshot wounds from Sgt. John Bones’ MP-5 9mm submachine gun. When a coroner arrived, he found the loaded .22 caliber pistol the two deputies claimed Mallory had pointed at them on the bedside table.

Mallory had not fired a single shot. The raid turned up no evidence of methamphetamine on the property.

The raid was conducted on the strength of a confidential informant and an investigator who claimed to have detected a “strong chemical odor” while downwind of the house. That apparently justified a military-style raid on the property, even though Mallory had no criminal history, let alone any indication of violence. Why not have Pate let them in and get Mallory out of bed to conduct their search?

This case demands some answers — and some changes, too.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

And a dollar bill still worth something

WryTrvllr on February 17, 2014 at 2:55 PM

If you’re concerned about the currency, I’d focus on the 1900s.

Most of us here do not. We hold liberty in significantly higher esteem than you apparently do.

Wars should be fought only for BIG reasons. Especially civil wars like the Drug War.

fadetogray on February 17, 2014 at 2:55 PM

I’ll say you do. Liberty is merely the ability do what you want. I see no reason inherently to crush it, nor to preserve it, without context regarding the manner in which it is being used. In such an abstract, it cannot be evaluated as being for good or ill, and so I harbor no particular attachment to it.

Stoic Patriot on February 17, 2014 at 3:00 PM

I’ll say you do. Liberty is merely the ability do what you want. I see no reason inherently to crush it, nor to preserve it, without context regarding the manner in which it is being used. In such an abstract, it cannot be evaluated as being for good or ill, and so I harbor no particular attachment to it.

Stoic Patriot on February 17, 2014 at 3:00 PM

Then the people here who have called you a fascist are absolutely correct. You have just expressed the outlook of political fascism quite accurately.

fadetogray on February 17, 2014 at 3:06 PM

Then the people here who have called you a fascist are absolutely correct. You have just expressed the outlook of political fascism quite accurately.

fadetogray on February 17, 2014 at 3:06 PM

I harbor no desire to slaughter Jews, nor do I look down upon people because of their race so I resent that. But if you want to use my preceding statement and equate that with fascism, then so be it. At that point you’ll have redefined fascism to being a respectable political philosophy that is more carefully considered than your own ill-conceived thirst for “liberty.”

Stoic Patriot on February 17, 2014 at 3:10 PM

The United States of America. You know, that country whose police you keep expressing such contempt for. Stoic Patriot on February 17, 2014 at 1:59 PM

Only the ones that are abusing the citizenry, the ones you’re (surprisingly) an apologist for.

Akzed on February 17, 2014 at 3:26 PM

Only the ones that are abusing the citizenry, the ones you’re (surprisingly) an apologist for.

Akzed on February 17, 2014 at 3:26 PM

Uh, yeah… those people that I’ve so arduously defended that I’ve said they should face criminal charges. Gee whiz, that’s such a strong defense of abusing citizens!

Stoic Patriot on February 17, 2014 at 3:28 PM

I harbor no desire to slaughter Jews, nor do I look down upon people because of their race so I resent that.

Racism is not a necessary component of political fascism. It just tends to end up following along, the same as with fascism’s kissing cousin, progressivism.

But if you want to use my preceding statement and equate that with fascism, then so be it. At that point you’ll have redefined fascism to being a respectable political philosophy that is more carefully considered than your own ill-conceived thirst for “liberty.”

Stoic Patriot on February 17, 2014 at 3:10 PM

Your outlook being fascist has nothing to do with how I choose or do not choose to see it. It is what it is. I haven’t redefined it at all. You just don’t know what it is you are embracing.

As a label fascism is out of vogue, but it is the most popular political philosophy now on the planet (both political and economic fascism), even more popular than progressivism.

Both outlooks see political liberty as a silly thing unworthy of being a core value, let alone The core value.

So you are in a big crowd. You’re just a bit out of place in the comment section of a conservative blog in America. Most of us just naturally assume that you understand when we refer to liberty we are referring to political liberty, and most of us are aware the Founders loved liberty and disliked the fascists of their day (though they weren’t called fascists then).

fadetogray on February 17, 2014 at 4:00 PM

Those who knowingly fight the authorities as many here are apt to do deserve neither liberty, nor safety, nor life.

Stoic Patriot on February 17, 2014 at 1:42 PM

Hahahahahahahahaha….hahahahahahahahaha wow, now that is a lover of big government / progressive if I ever saw one. In this slaves mind, authority equals right. With douche-bags like this around there would have never been an American revolution. Benedict Arnold he is.

MoreLiberty on February 17, 2014 at 4:02 PM

I harbor no desire to slaughter Jews, nor do I look down upon people because of their race so I resent that. But if you want to use my preceding statement and equate that with fascism, then so be it.

Here we go again…

“Fascism” has nothing intrinsically to do with anti-Semitism (unknown to the Italian and Japanese models), and its racism is more an artifact of its 1920s-30s origin period. What it focuses on is an organization of society around an idealized State, with an emphasis on unity, and the control of all major institutions (including the economy, labor unions, religion, and family life)centered on and ultimately controlled by and for the state in behalf of the unified collective. There are lots of Fascists who resent the label as much as they deserve it. You’re welcome.

werewife on February 17, 2014 at 4:08 PM

Stoic Patriot on February 17, 2014 at 3:28 PM

Haven’t read every post, sorry.

Akzed on February 17, 2014 at 4:08 PM

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.

-Thomas Jefferson

Those who knowingly fight the authorities as many here are apt to do deserve neither liberty, nor safety, nor life.

-Stoic Patriot

It’s easy to see who the real big government/progressive tyrant is around here

MoreLiberty on February 17, 2014 at 4:13 PM

Your outlook being fascist has nothing to do with how I choose or do not choose to see it. It is what it is. I haven’t redefined it at all. You just don’t know what it is you are embracing.

As a label fascism is out of vogue, but it is the most popular political philosophy now on the planet (both political and economic fascism), even more popular than progressivism.

Both outlooks see political liberty as a silly thing unworthy of being a core value, let alone The core value.

So you are in a big crowd. You’re just a bit out of place in the comment section of a conservative blog in America. Most of us just naturally assume that you understand when we refer to liberty we are referring to political liberty, and most of us are aware the Founders loved liberty and disliked the fascists of their day (though they weren’t called fascists then).

fadetogray on February 17, 2014 at 4:00 PM

Like I said, if what I said previously is the way you want to define fascism, then so be it. Liberty is not intrinsically good. It is simply the ability to act as one will, and holds no context by itself, nor does is it accompanied by a set of presupposed moral constraints. The capability to indulge vice or commit great evil must be opposed, and if that is what you cherish then I am proud to stand against you.

Stoic Patriot on February 17, 2014 at 4:17 PM

Hahahahahahahahaha….hahahahahahahahaha wow, now that is a lover of big government / progressive if I ever saw one. In this slaves mind, authority equals right. With douche-bags like this around there would have never been an American revolution. Benedict Arnold he is.

MoreLiberty on February 17, 2014 at 4:02 PM

Hardly. Universal morality, discovered through reason, is what is right. However, when one enters into civilized society, one necessarily surrenders certain liberties that one would otherwise have in a state of nature as the price for being part of that society. Part of that comes through the confiscation of income known as taxation. Part of that is obedience to the state, its laws, and the will of one’s own colleagues so long as that will does not compromise the core of natural law – the preservation of human rights and dignity.

It’s easy to see who the real big government/progressive tyrant is around here

MoreLiberty on February 17, 2014 at 4:13 PM

I make no claim to being for “smaller government.” I want a government that metes out justice and protects its citizens. If that requires a large state to achieve that end, so be it.

“Fascism” has nothing intrinsically to do with anti-Semitism (unknown to the Italian and Japanese models), and its racism is more an artifact of its 1920s-30s origin period. What it focuses on is an organization of society around an idealized State, with an emphasis on unity, and the control of all major institutions (including the economy, labor unions, religion, and family life)centered on and ultimately controlled by and for the state in behalf of the unified collective. There are lots of Fascists who resent the label as much as they deserve it. You’re welcome.

werewife on February 17, 2014 at 4:08 PM

Alright. Let’s use your definition. Do I think that the government should regulate? Yes. Do I think that means it should seize the means of production for its own ends? No. Do I favor labor unions? Yes, as a form of protection against exploitation. Do I favor a state-mandated religion? No. Do I favor state control of family life? It depends on the context. Stopping abortion and prosecuting adultery? Yes. Mandating people play Scrabble? No.

If those positions are fascist, so be it. I contend that they’re better than yours.

Stoic Patriot on February 17, 2014 at 4:27 PM

Hellfire away.

SHACK!!!

Suspect neutralized.

Stoic Patriot on February 17, 2016

DarkCurrent on February 17, 2014 at 4:47 PM

If you’re concerned about the currency, I’d focus on the 1900s.

Yes. Starting with the progressives who created the Fed and ending with Quantitative easing to infinity.

All Hail Authority!

WryTrvllr on February 17, 2014 at 5:33 PM

In such an abstract, it cannot be evaluated as being for good or ill, and so I harbor no particular attachment to it.

Stoic Patriot on February 17, 2014 at 3:00 PM

seems sorta vacuous no?

WryTrvllr on February 17, 2014 at 5:34 PM

Hellfire away.

SHACK!!!

Suspect neutralized.

Stoic Patriot on February 17, 2016

DarkCurrent on February 17, 2014 at 4:47 PM

Missed! Sorry, but Obama’s drone strike program hasn’t gotten me yet. Try again. =P

seems sorta vacuous no?

WryTrvllr on February 17, 2014 at 5:34 PM

Liberty without a description of what it’s being used for is vacuous, yes. It cannot be called good or bad without additional details. That was my point.

Stoic Patriot on February 17, 2014 at 5:47 PM

Liberty without a description of what it’s being used for is vacuous, yes. It cannot be called good or bad without additional details. That was my point.

Stoic Patriot on February 17, 2014 at 5:47 PM

You’ve been given some exceptionally good definitions of liberty above. The problem is, they don’t suit your purpose.

WryTrvllr on February 17, 2014 at 6:10 PM

You’ve been given some exceptionally good definitions of liberty above. The problem is, they don’t suit your purpose.

WryTrvllr on February 17, 2014 at 6:10 PM

Some? There’s been exactly one definition by my count for that term, and even then it had the term “rightful” added in front by Jefferson. See:

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others

So the one constraint we see is that the equal rights of others impose restrictions per that definition. This invites several criticisms:

1.) What about actions that don’t violate someone’s rights, but merely place them in jeopardy for nothing more than recreational purposes? (e.g., racing down a highway may be reckless endangerment to others, but it doesn’t actually harm them per se).

2.) Is there any place for the state to achieve ends not simply of morality, but virtue? I’m not an animal rights activist, but I still agree with Michael Vick’s imprisonment after he killed dogs. It’s not because I care about the dogs, but that I recognize that in sadistically enjoying the death of another, it is self-conditioning that erodes moral restraint. Consequently, I think the state should intervene.

3.) If we assume “rightful liberty” harms no one as Jefferson defines it, and if we assume away the prior 2 points, that may mean we no longer have something which could be considered objectionable, meaning there is no reason to wish to quash it. At the same time, is there any reason outside of the fulfillment of human wants to preserve it? That is, even if we can get past the notion that “rightful liberty” is not something to object to, what is the affirmative case for it?

Stoic Patriot on February 17, 2014 at 6:25 PM

Stoic Patriot on February 17, 2014 at 4:27 PM

Patriot of ….what?

KirknBurker on February 17, 2014 at 6:44 PM

Patriot of ….what?

KirknBurker on February 17, 2014 at 6:44 PM

Check the 1:59 post. Been there. Done that.

Stoic Patriot on February 17, 2014 at 6:47 PM

1.) What about actions that don’t violate someone’s rights, but merely place them in jeopardy for nothing more than recreational purposes? (e.g., racing down a highway may be reckless endangerment to others, but it doesn’t actually harm them per se).

Some would argue the same of high speed chase. We had a killing here few years back because of one. Do you decide?

2.) Is there any place for the state to achieve ends not simply of morality, but virtue? I’m not an animal rights activist, but I still agree with Michael Vick’s imprisonment after he killed dogs. It’s not because I care about the dogs, but that I recognize that in sadistically enjoying the death of another, it is self-conditioning that erodes moral restraint. Consequently, I think the state should intervene.

PETA and the HSUS kill plenty of dogs. In Spain they kill bulls.

Police dogs are trined to be vicious. Do you decide?

3.) If we assume “rightful liberty” harms no one as Jefferson defines it, and if we assume away the prior 2 points, that may mean we no longer have something which could be considered objectionable, meaning there is no reason to wish to quash it. At the same time, is there any reason outside of the fulfillment of human wants to preserve it? That is, even if we can get past the notion that “rightful liberty” is not something to object to, what is the affirmative case for it?

As the person pushing for a change in the status quou, the burden rests on you. I am sure you’d like to decide. History is replete with examples of what it is like living under someone who would define liberty for everyone else.

By you leave sir, I am traveling tonight. It serves no greater purpose, so please don’t be offended. Hopefully not through your state.

WryTrvllr on February 17, 2014 at 7:00 PM

trained

WryTrvllr on February 17, 2014 at 7:00 PM

Both outlooks see political liberty as a silly thing unworthy of being a core value, let alone The core value.

fadetogray on February 17, 2014 at 4:00 PM

Let’s make the distinction that liberty is the core political value. It is not the core value of life – it is an enabling value for practicing life’s other values.

Libertarians often confuse the one for the other. However, Stoic Patriot goes the other way, and takes an important point and turns it on its head. Morals are more important than liberty*, both in terms of life and politics. However, they do not (just as liberty does not) devolve from the government, but rise up from the society. Stoic Patriot seems to want to work the morals from top down. That is the definition of totalitarianism.

.
.
.
* Remember Adam’s famous quote: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

GWB on February 17, 2014 at 7:01 PM

Some would argue the same of high speed chase. We had a killing here few years back because of one. Do you decide?

Regarding highway endangerment, yes, I think it should be illegal, with an exception for police going after someone who is fleeing.

PETA and the HSUS kill plenty of dogs. In Spain they kill bulls.

Police dogs are trined to be vicious. Do you decide?

The manner and motive for killing matters. Euthanasia versus killing for sport are two entirely different… “animals”, if you will.

As the person pushing for a change in the status quou, the burden rests on you. I am sure you’d like to decide. History is replete with examples of what it is like living under someone who would define liberty for everyone else.

By you leave sir, I am traveling tonight. It serves no greater purpose, so please don’t be offended. Hopefully not through your state.

WryTrvllr on February 17, 2014 at 7:00 PM

Uh, no, given that you are the ones pushing for liberty to be defended not just passively but actively, the burden falls on you to make your case.

Stoic Patriot on February 17, 2014 at 7:37 PM

Libertarians often confuse the one for the other. However, Stoic Patriot goes the other way, and takes an important point and turns it on its head. Morals are more important than liberty*, both in terms of life and politics. However, they do not (just as liberty does not) devolve from the government, but rise up from the society. Stoic Patriot seems to want to work the morals from top down. That is the definition of totalitarianism.

* Remember Adam’s famous quote: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

GWB on February 17, 2014 at 7:01 PM

I’d disagree with morals coming from the government or the people. Morality, like physics, simply is — although while physics’ laws can be discovered through empiricism, morality can only be discovered a priori.

Morality is a function over human action, the actors of said actions, and the circumstances around said actors and actions, which generates an assessment and proscribes rectifying counter-actions if an initial action is immoral. Government then (ideally) faithfully carries out any counter-actions to mete out justice against those whose actions deviate from moral behavior.

Stoic Patriot on February 17, 2014 at 7:46 PM

Where has feeding the monkeys ever gotten anyone?

claudius on February 17, 2014 at 7:49 PM

This reminds me of the 92 year old lady who was killed somewhere down South in a drug raid – or was it a warrant service – gone wrong within the last decade or so.

Any more, SWAT sucks.

Woody

woodcdi on February 17, 2014 at 9:59 PM

I thought police only killed black people.

evergreen on February 17, 2014 at 10:43 PM

Where has feeding the monkeys ever gotten anyone?

claudius on February 17, 2014 at 7:49 PM

ummmm, free manure and a free plastics job?

WryTrvllr on February 18, 2014 at 1:36 AM

Regarding highway endangerment, yes, I think it should be illegal, with an exception for police going after someone who is fleeing.

They were. The kid who died was 17.

The manner and motive for killing matters. Euthanasia versus killing for sport are two entirely different… “animals”, if you will

I’ve always loved how liberals get to pick which animals we should emulate. Cats and Killer whales play with their food for hours. Hyenas commit fratricide. Funny They don’t get mentioned. Different animal, I guess.

“Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom”

Also, re:above, another great definition of liberty, is the ability to go to bed at night, not fearing the police will break in and shoot you.

WryTrvllr on February 18, 2014 at 1:47 AM

Stoic Patriot on February 17, 2014 at 7:37 PM

Also

regarding your previous limitations on our liberties, the Jet A for my trip is very similar to diesel, used to run farm tractors. Price of food goes up.

The steak or seafood I eat will not be available to anyone else and the price goes up.

Poorer people will suffer.

Do you abrogate the right to decide?

WryTrvllr on February 18, 2014 at 1:50 AM

arrogate, cause it’s late

WryTrvllr on February 18, 2014 at 1:58 AM

They were. The kid who died was 17.

Sounds like the kid was being stupid then.

I’ve always loved how liberals get to pick which animals we should emulate. Cats and Killer whales play with their food for hours. Hyenas commit fratricide. Funny They don’t get mentioned. Different animal, I guess.

“Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom”

Also, re:above, another great definition of liberty, is the ability to go to bed at night, not fearing the police will break in and shoot you.

WryTrvllr on February 18, 2014 at 1:47 AM

My reference to animals was entirely based on a pun in reference to Vick. I have no idea where the hell you’re going with it. As for the definition of liberty, that’s contingent on each person’s individual mental states and paranoia, not the actions or inactions of the state, nor does that provide a reason to cherish it.

Also regarding your previous limitations on our liberties, the Jet A for my trip is very similar to diesel, used to run farm tractors. Price of food goes up.

The steak or seafood I eat will not be available to anyone else and the price goes up. Poorer people will suffer. Do you abrogate the right to decide?

WryTrvllr on February 18, 2014 at 1:50 AM

That’s nice, but I could care less about your jet plane. If you’re asking whether or not I favor fuel mandates like ethanol, the answer is no. But that’s really got nothing to do with whether or not police can conduct a no-knock raid.

Stoic Patriot on February 18, 2014 at 6:49 AM

Those who knowingly fight the authorities as many here are apt to do deserve neither liberty, nor safety, nor life.

Stoic Patriot on February 17, 2014 at 1:42 PM

Um, not what you’re saying.

Because you’re also ok with killing those who unknowingly fight the authorities, or do anything to try to defend their homes and families… those are just broken eggs you have to accept to scramble your police-power omelet.

Which is something you’re not going to find a lot of support for here.

“Hey, we have to accept some innocents shot in their homes and killed by police in order to have a more intrusive and powerful government”

That’s the problem… I don’t like people being shot in their homes AND I don’t like a more intrusive and powerful government. It’s not even a trade I’d consider.

But good luck persuading people if only we’d let the cops kill some innocents we could be “safer” with a burgeoning police state. You won’t get anyone who doesn’t support a police state supporting you; but that can’t be a surprise.

Oh, you already covered this:

If those positions are fascist, so be it. I contend that they’re better than yours.

Stoic Patriot on February 17, 2014 at 4:27 PM

Yes, I consider a police state capable of killing you in your home without evidence of any crime or even warning being required “fascist”… and I contend that fascism is not better not having that fascism.

But feel free to disagree. I support your right to freedom. I won’t reverse that opinion just because you don’t support my idea of freedom and instead support what i see to be fascist control comparable to a police state.

You are correct that with a police state you’d have fewer crimes. If you executed everyone who was suspected of a crime you’d have fewer crimes too… at some point you have to believe “fewer crimes” isn’t the only goal.

gekkobear on February 18, 2014 at 3:58 PM

Um, not what you’re saying.

Because you’re also ok with killing those who unknowingly fight the authorities, or do anything to try to defend their homes and families… those are just broken eggs you have to accept to scramble your police-power omelet.

It’s a matter that in order to adopt a position, you need to be able to distinguish between when someone knows what’s going on in a situation, and when one doesn’t. Example: Dick Cheney shot somebody. If he knew that he was going to be shooting his hunting buddy, he ought to be tried for attempted murder. If he didn’t, then he shouldn’t. Establishing whether or not someone is knowingly or unknowingly doing something is crucial in establishing culpability and its extent.

Which is something you’re not going to find a lot of support for here.

Most of my detractors here are wannabe cop-killing vigilantes. I can’t say I’m particularly surprised.

“Hey, we have to accept some innocents shot in their homes and killed by police in order to have a more intrusive and powerful government”

Golly, it’s the master of the red herring! Actually, it’s to have a government that can enforce the law and conduct searches to perform that duty.

That’s the problem… I don’t like people being shot in their homes AND I don’t like a more intrusive and powerful government. It’s not even a trade I’d consider.

But good luck persuading people if only we’d let the cops kill some innocents we could be “safer” with a burgeoning police state. You won’t get anyone who doesn’t support a police state supporting you; but that can’t be a surprise.

Oh, you already covered this:

Hey, if we never want someone shot by the police, then all we need is unarmed police officers, right? See how far your society gets with that.

Yes, I consider a police state capable of killing you in your home without evidence of any crime or even warning being required “fascist”… and I contend that fascism is not better not having that fascism.

But feel free to disagree. I support your right to freedom. I won’t reverse that opinion just because you don’t support my idea of freedom and instead support what i see to be fascist control comparable to a police state.

You are correct that with a police state you’d have fewer crimes. If you executed everyone who was suspected of a crime you’d have fewer crimes too… at some point you have to believe “fewer crimes” isn’t the only goal.

gekkobear on February 18, 2014 at 3:58 PM

Evidently it bears repeating since this point is apparently incapable of making it across to my detractors. I said that the police in this case should be brought up on criminal charges. I never said that they should be authorized to kill people without provocation, and I did not express support for the shooting. Understand? The point of disagreement here is whether or not entry was permissible, and the reasonable response of an occupant to a no-knock raid.

Stoic Patriot on February 18, 2014 at 5:11 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4