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

“Sgt. John Bones’ MP-5 9mm submachine gun”

What was the U.S. Army doing on a drug raid?

corona79 on February 16, 2014 at 3:40 PM

Sadly, Malloy & Reed are dinosaurs now.

Lanceman on February 16, 2014 at 3:43 PM

Police Citizens don’t have to place themselves in danger by allowing someone police to shoot them before they respond.

FIFY

corona79 on February 16, 2014 at 3:43 PM

The thing is if you got a couple of hot tips and it isn’t about someone building a bomb or bio weapon or some such, that is the time to cue the police work. You know, investigation? A few days scouting a place? Doing checks on what is going on?

Because even a meth lab doesn’t get the no-knock without some background investigation beyond hot tips. The no-knock raid comes after getting a lot of evidence… even a one day stake-out would show that this is an 80 year old guy and his wife not doing anything remotely criminal related.

How could any judge issue a warrant for this based on hot tips?

You know, the old file folder full of stuff with signed reports and stuff that the judge then puts on file?

Weren’t those the days, huh?

ajacksonian on February 16, 2014 at 3:44 PM

The drug war. The war against recreational substances that people willingly take for their own pleasure.

Can’t have that. Send in the soldiers.

HugoDrax on February 16, 2014 at 3:02 PM

I guess you have never has hard core meth addicts living next to you. I had one who burned down two houses, killed my pointers by gutting, filled one of my out buildings with bullet holes. The sheriff did nothing until he (the meth head) stabbed his wife, attacked his kids. He was protected by his family – they just loved him to death. By the way, the sheriff then is no longer our sheriff now.

Old Country Boy on February 16, 2014 at 3:47 PM

burned down two houses

killed my pointers by gutting

filled one of my out buildings with bullet holes.

stabbed his wife

attacked his kids.

Old Country Boy on February 16, 2014 at 3:47 PM

Haven’t you heard? Drugs are a victimless crime! /sarc

sharrukin on February 16, 2014 at 3:49 PM

None of you guys seem to get it. We are in a Drug War. This is how war is conducted.

fadetogray on February 16, 2014 at 2:57 PM

Didn’t you hear? President Choom surrendered this war, and ordered his DOJ to not prosecute. (Hey, presidents need to toke up once in a while in the Oval Office. When they’re not getting Lewinsky’d by an intern.)

RoadRunner on February 16, 2014 at 3:51 PM

How could any judge issue a warrant for this based on hot tips?

ajacksonian on February 16, 2014 at 3:44 PM

I think that is what bothers me the most about this story. What kind of judge issues that kind of warrant in this kind of situation?

Whoever he is, he is one Hell of a lot more frightening than one poorly trained trigger happy cop.

fadetogray on February 16, 2014 at 3:53 PM

If these damnable, asinine, lying cops aren’t sent to prison FOREVER for this crime, then I’ll never let a cop killer go to prison if I’m on a jury unless there is absolute irrefutable proof of the crime. Why aren’t people protesting para-military actions by the police?

HiJack on February 16, 2014 at 3:54 PM

I guess you have never has hard core meth addicts living next to you. I had one who burned down two houses, killed my pointers by gutting, filled one of my out buildings with bullet holes. The sheriff did nothing until he (the meth head) stabbed his wife, attacked his kids. He was protected by his family – they just loved him to death. By the way, the sheriff then is no longer our sheriff now.

Old Country Boy on February 16, 2014 at 3:47 PM

This wasn’t a drug problem. What you had was a criminal problem.

One of the arguments in favor of the Drug War is that it makes it easier for law enforcement to lock up dangerous criminals.

That is both true and all wrong. You don’t fix the problem with society failing to properly deal with its dangerous criminal element by helping the dangerous criminal element make money.

fadetogray on February 16, 2014 at 3:58 PM

Whoever he is, he is one Hell of a lot more frightening than one poorly trained trigger happy cop.

fadetogray on February 16, 2014 at 3:53 PM

Would that it was just one cop… not a whole no-knock raid.

We hire cops to do police work which involves work. Lots of it. Tons of reports. Investigative procedure. Securing a trail of evidence.

The violence is near the end of that cycle a long way away.

Judges are hired to check the trail of evidence. To have on record that there is a clear and compelling trail of evidence leading up to the issuing of a warrant.

It isn’t just the raid.

It isn’t just the judge.

It isn’t just the police.

It is the entire procedural system which has broken down.

ajacksonian on February 16, 2014 at 4:01 PM

Stoic Patriot on February 16, 2014 at 3:42 PM

So maybe the best policy is to have the police knock on the door rather than break it down. Maybe even station a couple officers out back in case the suspects make a run for it.

What judge viewed what information that led to a warrant in this case? The police obviously did very little investigation into the alleged crime, because if they had done proper police work they would have found no probable cause for a warrant, let alone their urban warfare tactics.

Had they merely observed the home for a few days they might have seen no evidence of criminal activity, and we would never have heard of poor Mr. Mallory.

When the application of maximum available force is in play, then even if the actors don’t apply maximum force they are likely to go way beyond the limits imposed by a more reasonable exercise of force, simply due to there being less force available in the latter case. This engenders a more reasonable approach than bursting through doors while people are asleep and shooting them when they pose no threat.

It just seems self-evident.

Akzed on February 16, 2014 at 4:05 PM

What’s to stop the authorities from staging an “accident” like this one to rid them of embarrassing opponents of the regime?

HiJack on February 16, 2014 at 4:08 PM

What’s to stop the authorities from staging an “accident” like this one to rid them of embarrassing opponents of the regime? HiJack on February 16, 2014 at 4:08 PM

Nothing. Cranky neighbors can do it too.

Akzed on February 16, 2014 at 4:10 PM

So maybe the best policy is to have the police knock on the door rather than break it down. Maybe even station a couple officers out back in case the suspects make a run for it.

What judge viewed what information that led to a warrant in this case? The police obviously did very little investigation into the alleged crime, because if they had done proper police work they would have found no probable cause for a warrant, let alone their urban warfare tactics.

Had they merely observed the home for a few days they might have seen no evidence of criminal activity, and we would never have heard of poor Mr. Mallory.

When the application of maximum available force is in play, then even if the actors don’t apply maximum force they are likely to go way beyond the limits imposed by a more reasonable exercise of force, simply due to there being less force available in the latter case. This engenders a more reasonable approach than bursting through doors while people are asleep and shooting them when they pose no threat.

It just seems self-evident.

Akzed on February 16, 2014 at 4:05 PM

Observation from outside is fine, but it’s hardly conclusive. They could have knocked on the door, but that would potentially give the occupant if he were a meth-dealer time to prepare if he wanted to resist. Whether a knock is appropriate or a no-knock raid is appropriate will always be a judgment call. You might be dealing with an innocent civilian (as in this case), or you may be dealing with someone who has enough firepower to arm a small militia and the will to use it. The police are in the awkward position where they don’t know the level of force that is ideal to go in with because they don’t know what they’ll be facing.

Stoic Patriot on February 16, 2014 at 4:19 PM

The police are in the awkward position where they don’t know the level of force that is ideal to go in with because they don’t know what they’ll be facing.

Stoic Patriot on February 16, 2014 at 4:19 PM

So in other words, you’re guilty of violently resisting search/arrest even before police knock on the door?

Rebar on February 16, 2014 at 4:26 PM

Schadenfreude on February 16, 2014 at 2:18 PM

Great refresher video. Thanks

Texyank on February 16, 2014 at 4:28 PM

If you wrote this a screenplay and tried to sell it, you would be laughed at. “Things like this don’t happen”… except they do. What is most frightening is that there will most probably be little discipline or repercussions for the officer involved. This won’t be because of excuses like “he was in danger for his life”, although that’s what they’ll say. It is because, like most people and organizations, they will be afraid to admit a single fault. They will believe that if they show a single chink in the armor, a single bad cop, it is as if they are admitting that all cops are bad, and their program is a failure. It is why a president can’t say “I made a mistake” or anyone, really. Not the best way to run a railroad (as we oldies used to say.)

theoldprofessor on February 16, 2014 at 4:30 PM

So in other words, you’re guilty of violently resisting search/arrest even before police knock on the door?

Rebar on February 16, 2014 at 4:26 PM

No, that would mean they could shoot as soon as they got through. What I’m saying is that they have the right to “go in heavy” in order to protect their own welfare and maximize their own chances of success in the event they do encounter resistance. That does not give them permission to simply blast anyone they see.

Stoic Patriot on February 16, 2014 at 4:31 PM

If this wasnt a direct rebuke of the war on drugs then I dont know what is.

You’re welcome America.

Spliff Menendez on February 16, 2014 at 4:31 PM

What I’m saying is that they have the right to “go in heavy” in order to protect their own welfare and maximize their own chances of success in the event they do encounter resistance.

Stoic Patriot on February 16, 2014 at 4:31 PM

Uh … they’re not even ALLOWED to go in without actual evidence of a crime. And a “smell” somewhere downwind of the house ain’t it.

You seem to want to live in a state where the government owns everything, all subjects are nothing but “occupants” and the cops can go in guns blazing anywhere they feel like it, for any reason.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on February 16, 2014 at 4:35 PM

Uh … they’re not even ALLOWED to go in without actual evidence of a crime. And a “smell” somewhere downwind of the house ain’t it.

You seem to want to live in a state where the government owns everything, all subjects are nothing but “occupants” and the cops can go in guns blazing anywhere they feel like it, for any reason.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on February 16, 2014 at 4:35 PM

The police are most definitely allowed to go in when they have warrants, and even without warrants are allowed to enter under exigent circumstances. They were completely within their rights to enter the home.

That does not invalidate all notions of private property. What’s more, you think that I believe the cops can go in guns blazing? What is it about the words “That does not give them permission to simply blast anyone they see” (part of the very post you quoted) that you do not understand?

Stoic Patriot on February 16, 2014 at 4:38 PM

…The coroner disposed of Mallory’s body without the consent of his widow, according to the suit, which asks for unspecified compensatory and punitive damages.

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2014/01/10/widow-sues-la-sheriff-deputies-in-husbands-fatal-shooting/

davidk on February 16, 2014 at 2:31 PM

I expect that they got rid of the body quickly to eliminate evidence against them, like bedsheets in his wounds, angle of the wounds, etc.

slickwillie2001 on February 16, 2014 at 5:04 PM

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

I was sort of thinking it demands heads on a platter.

rrpjr on February 16, 2014 at 5:26 PM

So criminal home invaders should just yell “Police!” when they bust in…?

Akzed on February 16, 2014 at 2:47 PM

Being in buying a uniform also helps.

Stoic Patriot on February 16, 2014 at 3:00 PM

Modified fm

S. D. on February 16, 2014 at 5:43 PM

If you wrote this a screenplay and tried to sell it, you would be laughed at.

theoldprofessor on February 16, 2014 at 4:30 PM

Been done, probably more than once. I just remembered this one. Not a bad flick, especially the ending.

Oldnuke on February 16, 2014 at 5:52 PM

Stoic Patriot on February 16, 2014 at 4:38 PM

Are you a cop?

Oldnuke on February 16, 2014 at 5:54 PM

Actually, it is entrusted to the cops. That is why they “protect and serve” and provide us with law and order. They are the literal embodiment of law enforcement.

Actually, there is NO obligation to “protect and serve”:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=0

Cops do not provide law and order, tho their presence may often discourage illegality and disorder.
Law enforcement is only necessary because of the existence of law breaking, to discourage vigilantes.

And yes, they have the right to create dangerous situations in so far as it is done in the pursuit of upholding the law. They do that every time they confront a suspect, because there’s always the possibility he could take a hostage, or have a gun and kill an innocent bystander while resisting arrest.

Cops have NO SUCH RIGHT. If they did, they would be immune from lawsuits and criminal charges that come from such situations.

Under many circumstances it must be assumed that a dangerous situation already exists, depending upon the suspect, and cops have a responsibility to mitigate that danger.

As to whether any danger that occurred was reasonable or not (mitigated, created, or even escalated by the cops) is often settled by criminal trial and /or lawsuits against the cops.

Or by cases like this:
http://reason.com/blog/2014/02/07/texas-grand-jury-declines-to-indict-pot

And that’s a problem that you are always going to have: people lie. After all, when someone pulls you over to give you a speeding ticket, how do you know it’s a real cop and not some random guy with a car and some flashers? You don’t, but you have to go off of the best information you have.
Stoic Patriot on February 16, 2014 at 3:42 PM

Agreed, which is why I tell my daughters to calmly proceed to a well-lit area with as many people around as possible if a cop attempts to pull them over at night.

questionmark on February 16, 2014 at 6:03 PM

Are you a cop?

Oldnuke on February 16, 2014 at 5:54 PM

He11 no – he’s just a useful idiot who’s fully in favor of the Dems (commies) having total control of the population – and of course doesn’t understand or care about the US Constitution. He won’t complain about this kind of police state activity until HIS door gets knocked down.

dentarthurdent on February 16, 2014 at 6:04 PM

And that’s a problem that you are always going to have: people lie. After all, when someone pulls you over to give you a speeding ticket, how do you know it’s a real cop and not some random guy with a car and some flashers? You don’t, but you have to go off of the best information you have.
Stoic Patriot on February 16, 2014 at 3:42 PM

And this case ha already proven that cop lie as well.
And if you are not a criminal and you know it, how do you know its really cops busting in your door in the middle of the night?

dentarthurdent on February 16, 2014 at 6:08 PM

Well good thing he was white. Otherwise we’d have to bear hearing about how Obama thinks L.A. Sheriffs acted foolishly. Holder would remind us of what a nation of cowards we are. And Jackson and Sharpton would be house shopping on their white shaming tour…

And the fascist progressives would be calling for a ban on guns for L.A. Sheriffs…the white ones that weren’t Uncle Toms…

The MSM would have a reprieve from impending lay offs…

Dodged a bullet there. No pun intended.

ndanielson on February 16, 2014 at 6:09 PM

A submachine gun???? Really??? I have read how bad meth is and what it does to people but didn’t they check – an 80 year old man and his wife? Holy smokes.

My husband has been complaining about excess police behavior – if the police lose all respect, we’re all in real trouble.

MN J on February 16, 2014 at 6:09 PM

The police are in the awkward position where they don’t know the level of force that is ideal to go in with because they don’t know what they’ll be facing.

Stoic Patriot on February 16, 2014 at 4:19 PM
isn’t that part of the investigation?

svs22422 on February 16, 2014 at 6:11 PM

Unfortunately, the days of Sgt. Joe Friday cops are long since gone, and with them any respect for the Constitution. That there are people in this thread actually defending the notion of a military-style raid with urban assault weapons in an 80-year-old’s house all for the purpose of executing a freaking SEARCH WARRANT boggles the mind.

Just accept it folks. We’ve crossed the threshold. There are enough people who only care about getting their hand-outs and their phony sense of “safety” that we’re never going back to the Constitution.

Shump on February 16, 2014 at 6:12 PM

The guy who pulled the trigger ought to do life in jail, and everyone associated with this raid ought to get 20-30 as accessories.

No-knock has got to stop. I don’t care if they have a harder time tying evidence to people or whatever. Stake people out the old fashioned way. Starve ‘em out. I don’t care. Many states have laws preventing cops engaging in high-speed chases, yet we let this no-knock SWAT nonsense go on; and this after “SWATTING” has become a known issue.

I’m now far more concerned about an erroneous police raid on my home than a home invasion by bad guys. The bad guys won’t be wearing armor, will be less well armed and less well trained, there will likely be fewer of them, and I won’t be executed later even if I survive the encounter.

I swear my next house is going to be Fort Knox. It’ll be trouble if I ever lose the key, but no-one is going to kick in my door. And yes, I’ve done a bit of blast engineering.

TexasDan on February 16, 2014 at 6:18 PM

If this wasnt a direct rebuke of the war on drugs then I dont know what is.

You’re welcome America.

Spliff Menendez on February 16, 2014 at 4:31 PM
there’s plenty more of these kinds of story’s out there.

svs22422 on February 16, 2014 at 6:19 PM

Wrong. Your right to safety does not supersede theirs. An occupant is expected to identify an intruder, and if it is law enforcement, not engage. Other intruders though are fair game (with the exception of certain mandatory retreat states, whose politicians as far as I’m concerned ought to be dragged out back and shot).

Stoic Patriot on February 16, 2014 at 2:44 PM

So, if I’m asleep in my room and some unknown guys bust in my house with rifles, I’m supposed to politely ask them if they’re police officers before I’m allowed to defend my life/property? Sorry… I’m not legally required to ask an assailant for identification before I defend myself.

Wendya on February 16, 2014 at 6:19 PM

The police are in the awkward position where they don’t know the level of force that is ideal to go in with because they don’t know what they’ll be facing.

Stoic Patriot on February 16, 2014 at 4:19 PM

They’re also in the far more awkward position of explaining how a tip and a smell justified a search warrant in the first place, and then how the testimony of those sworn to uphold the law is controverted by every scrap of the physical evidence on the scene.

I must have missed the referendum where we all agreed that search warrants could be served in this manner.

TexasDan on February 16, 2014 at 6:23 PM

The police are in the awkward position where they don’t know the level of force that is ideal to go in with because they don’t know what they’ll be facing.

Stoic Patriot on February 16, 2014 at 4:19 PM

Were they at least aware that police work might be dangerous before they took the job, or did that catch them off guard too?

DFCtomm on February 16, 2014 at 6:37 PM

Are you a cop?

Oldnuke on February 16, 2014 at 5:54 PM

He11 no – he’s just a useful idiot who’s fully in favor of the Dems (commies) having total control of the population – and of course doesn’t understand or care about the US Constitution. He won’t complain about this kind of police state activity until HIS door gets knocked down.

dentarthurdent on February 16, 2014 at 6:04 PM

No, I’m an economist. And no, I’m not in favor of the Democrats having control of the population. I’m very much rooting for a Huckabee 2016 victory. And as for not complaining about such police activity until my door is knocked down, while my door hasn’t been knocked down, I’m not sure if you noticed but way back at the beginning of this thread:

But what’s been described here really can’t be explained as anything other than, at best, panic-induced killing which should result in immediate suspension from the force and criminal charges… and at worst, its cold-blooded murder.

Stoic Patriot on February 16, 2014 at 2:11 PM

What did you think that was?

Stoic Patriot on February 16, 2014 at 6:39 PM

And this case ha already proven that cop lie as well.
And if you are not a criminal and you know it, how do you know its really cops busting in your door in the middle of the night?

dentarthurdent on February 16, 2014 at 6:08 PM

You don’t. That was the entire point of saying that people lie. You have to go off of the best information that you have.

So, if I’m asleep in my room and some unknown guys bust in my house with rifles, I’m supposed to politely ask them if they’re police officers before I’m allowed to defend my life/property? Sorry… I’m not legally required to ask an assailant for identification before I defend myself.

Wendya on February 16, 2014 at 6:19 PM

If they identify as police (i.e., shout “Police!” as mentioned previously), or you see them wearing police uniforms, then yes, I expect you to not simply shoot them.

Stoic Patriot on February 16, 2014 at 6:42 PM

No, I’m an economist.

You really didn’t need to continue after that revelation. That certainly explains a creative reality.

DFCtomm on February 16, 2014 at 6:43 PM

They’re also in the far more awkward position of explaining how a tip and a smell justified a search warrant in the first place, and then how the testimony of those sworn to uphold the law is controverted by every scrap of the physical evidence on the scene.

I must have missed the referendum where we all agreed that search warrants could be served in this manner.

TexasDan on February 16, 2014 at 6:23 PM

Then you’ve missed a lot. They got a tip. That’s reason to investigate. They obtained a warrant. That’s explicit permission to search from a judge. What’s (rightly) going to burn their bacon is the recording where they shoot first, and then demand that the guy drop the gun. That’s grounds to at least try the officers for manslaughter, if not murder.

Were they at least aware that police work might be dangerous before they took the job, or did that catch them off guard too?

DFCtomm on February 16, 2014 at 6:37 PM

They’re well aware. That’s why they go in armed with bulletproof vests rather than with Hawaiian shirts and a beach ball.

Stoic Patriot on February 16, 2014 at 6:47 PM

You really didn’t need to continue after that revelation. That certainly explains a creative reality.

DFCtomm on February 16, 2014 at 6:43 PM

I think it was Truman who asked for a one-handed economist because he was sick of being told “On the one hand X, and on the other hand Y.”

Stoic Patriot on February 16, 2014 at 6:49 PM

When it was all over, Eugene Mallory died of six gunshot wounds from Sgt. John Bones’ MP-5 9mm submachine gun.

Someone clearly needs some NRA courses on gun safety.

William Eaton on February 16, 2014 at 6:59 PM

This is what you get when a State over steps its authority.

TX-96 on February 16, 2014 at 7:00 PM

This is incredibly scary. The man and his wife were law-abiding people, and now he is dead. This could happen to any of us with out of control law enforcement people (not all, but far too many). Very scary. That man was murdered in his bed–warrant or not!

californiacitizen on February 16, 2014 at 7:06 PM

We now live in a police state. Many law enforcement officials have taken to dressing themselves up in Delta Force gear from the Delta force store. They behave as if they are door kickers in Afghanistan.
They behave as if they are an occupying army.

I also believe steroids have become a problem with many who work in local, state, and federal law enforcement.

Either way, the end result is more “citizens” terrorized, falsely charged, maimed and Killed. ( I use the term “citizens” loosely, we are actually subjects at this point )

Exninja on February 16, 2014 at 7:06 PM

I can almost guarantee if such a raid occurred at my house, I would be dead also. Most of these raids occur at night. The police announce police and break down the door. Of course I would hear the door being breached and wake up; but not the police call out. I would immediately grab my pistol and then I would be killed by a hail of 9mm bullets for my efforts.

I understand in this era that it is very dangerous to perform a legal raid and if announced too “nicely” drugs will disappear down the toilet. However, we have placed too much emphasis on drug raids and information from supposed informants.

Whatever happened to the ideal in criminal law, Blackstone’s formulation, the principle that: “It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer”.

amr on February 16, 2014 at 7:10 PM

Not surprising to see StoicFascist in favor of the police state murdering its citizens for no reason at all.

besser tot als rot on February 16, 2014 at 7:15 PM

Oh. Except for the rapists and murderers that Huckabee likes to set free to sew mayhem. Those guys should be free to do as they please.

besser tot als rot on February 16, 2014 at 7:16 PM

…I also believe steroids have become a problem with many who work in local, state, and federal law enforcement.

Exninja on February 16, 2014 at 7:06 PM

Yes. Step one after an incident like this should be a drug test for all the cops involved.

slickwillie2001 on February 16, 2014 at 7:23 PM

Not surprising to see StoicFascist in favor of the police state murdering its citizens for no reason at all.

besser tot als rot on February 16, 2014 at 7:15 PM

Nice to see you back at your usual unsubstantiated name-calling, and already-disproven claims if you’d bothered to actually read what I’ve written.

Oh. Except for the rapists and murderers that Huckabee likes to set free to sew mayhem. Those guys should be free to do as they please.

besser tot als rot on February 16, 2014 at 7:16 PM

And as I’ve said before, I think that’s a legitimate avenue to criticize him on. It’s just about the only one that his critics have had on him. Past that they typically resort to sensationalism, or as with the libido controversy, distorting so badly what was said that it becomes the opposite of the original statement.

Stoic Patriot on February 16, 2014 at 7:25 PM

I used to be a reflexive supporter of law enforcement. Now, I’ve seen too many instances where hyper-militarized, jackbooted SWAT teams kill innocent civilians, shoot dogs and destroy property with no apparent concern for probable cause, proportionality or the havoc that they wreak.

When every Cabinet department fields its own SWAT team, something in government has gone horribly wrong. These people are not acting in the interests of Americans. The government is not your friend.

Cicero43 on February 16, 2014 at 7:31 PM

What’s an old man doing at a battle in Fallujah….. oops …oh yeah amerikkka

RIP

donabernathy on February 16, 2014 at 7:34 PM

They’re also in the far more awkward position of explaining how a tip and a smell justified a search warrant in the first place, and then how the testimony of those sworn to uphold the law is controverted by every scrap of the physical evidence on the scene.

I must have missed the referendum where we all agreed that search warrants could be served in this manner.

TexasDan on February 16, 2014 at 6:23 PM

Then you’ve missed a lot. They got a tip. That’s reason to investigate. They obtained a warrant. That’s explicit permission to search from a judge. What’s (rightly) going to burn their bacon is the recording where they shoot first, and then demand that the guy drop the gun. That’s grounds to at least try the officers for manslaughter, if not murder.

Stoic Patriot on February 16, 2014 at 6:47 PM

Don’t be dense. I was referring to the explosion of the of the tactic in recent years. It appears the DOJ gave Federal judges this authority in 2002. Why the hell does the DOJ get to grant this ability? Where are the people in this? BTW, it’s interesting to note that the DOJ decision mentions that the police may violate the 4th amendment even if they have such a warrant in hand.

TexasDan on February 16, 2014 at 7:34 PM

Don’t be dense. I was referring to the explosion of the of the tactic in recent years. It appears the DOJ gave Federal judges this authority in 2002. Why the hell does the DOJ get to grant this ability? Where are the people in this? BTW, it’s interesting to note that the DOJ decision mentions that the police may violate the 4th amendment even if they have such a warrant in hand.

TexasDan on February 16, 2014 at 7:34 PM

Looking at the PDF you linked to, it’s less that DOJ has granted the authority and more that the authority was determined to exist under United States vs Leon (although if it’s going to come from anywhere in the Federal government under the guise of regulation, it makes sense that it would originate from the department charged with law enforcement duties).

In Wilson vs Arkansas, again from your own PDF, DOJ states that the court indicated that knocking first “was never stated as an inflexible rule requiring announcement under all circumstances.” It looks like the courts also ruled in favor of no-knocking in Richards vs. Wisconsin.

So as for where they’re deriving this authority, it looks like it’s from a whole heck of a lot of case law.

Stoic Patriot on February 16, 2014 at 7:41 PM

Stoic Patriot on February 16, 2014 at 6:42 PM

You obviously miss (or despise) the entire fundamental basis of the US Constitution – which is to limit the power of the government – not the people.
According to the Constitution, which used to mean something, the government (i.e. police) does NOT have the right to be the instigators of a life and death situation in which they then proceed to gun down innocent people without those people being read their rights or to have their lives defended in court prior to their execution.
Cops do NOT have the legal right to make themselves judge, jury, and executioner of innocent people. If they now do, as you seem to favor, then the US is no longer any better than North Korea, Cambodia, Iran, Cuba, China, Sudan, Uganda, the (former) Soviet Union, or any other bloodthirsty dictatorship.

dentarthurdent on February 16, 2014 at 7:51 PM

Correctly identifying you as a fascist is not name calling. It’s what you call an accurate description.

besser tot als rot on February 16, 2014 at 7:57 PM

No, I’m an economist.
Stoic Patriot on February 16, 2014 at 6:39 PM

Ahhh – so you’re accustomed to being wrong most of the time…

Yes, I did miss that other line.
And yet you keep defending the cops for going in guns blazing with what is at best a severely faulty search warrant and killing an old man who apparently did not actually have a gun in his hand, and lying about what happened.
So why do you keep making excuses for the cops?

dentarthurdent on February 16, 2014 at 7:59 PM

I guess you have never has hard core meth addicts living next to you. I had one who burned down two houses, killed my pointers by gutting, filled one of my out buildings with bullet holes. The sheriff did nothing until he (the meth head) stabbed his wife, attacked his kids. He was protected by his family – they just loved him to death. By the way, the sheriff then is no longer our sheriff now.

Old Country Boy on February 16, 2014 at 3:47 PM

Haven’t you heard? Drugs are a victimless crime! /sarc

sharrukin on February 16, 2014 at 3:49 PM

Prohibition of alcohol launched organized crime and a wave of violence, all while increasing the number of deaths from alcohol abuse. Have you noticed how few moonshiners and speakeasies there are in your neighborhood today?

One benefit of ending Prohibition (the modern version, drugs) is that you’d no longer have criminals making meth in residential neighborhoods. Who’d buy that crud when they can buy the pure stuff at RiteAid.

The criminal element that still surrounds drugs exists because people can’t buy it from legitimate retailers. Same exact thing happened with alcohol, and when Prohibition (the old version, alcohol) ended, the criminal element’s involvement in alcohol moved on to other industries.

SoRight on February 16, 2014 at 8:01 PM

The drug war on meth has obviously failed so I guess we need to legalize it.

Buddahpundit on February 16, 2014 at 8:03 PM

The criminal element that still surrounds drugs exists because people can’t buy it from legitimate retailers.

SoRight on February 16, 2014 at 8:01 PM

burned down two houses

killed my pointers by gutting

filled one of my out buildings with bullet holes.

stabbed his wife

attacked his kids.

All that because the price for drugs was too high, or he couldn’t buy it from the local 7-11?

And here I thought the meth had something to do with it.

sharrukin on February 16, 2014 at 8:10 PM

cno

confidential informant
more like a drug dealer they caught and said give us something or you go to jail

so he did
and the keystone kops murdered a guy.

why is it cops can gun you down like a dog and go

oh my bad , sorry

bullchit
send this gung ho gestaop hit squad to jail
and sue the city for millions

sniffles1999 on February 16, 2014 at 8:17 PM

One benefit of ending Prohibition (the modern version, drugs) is that you’d no longer have criminals making meth in residential neighborhoods. Who’d buy that crud when they can buy the pure stuff at RiteAid.

The criminal element that still surrounds drugs exists because people can’t buy it from legitimate retailers. Same exact thing happened with alcohol, and when Prohibition (the old version, alcohol) ended, the criminal element’s involvement in alcohol moved on to other industries.

SoRight on February 16, 2014 at 8:01 PM

That’s not entirely the case, at least not right away.
Just had a discussion along this line with my son regarding legal pot in Colorado. For the record, I don’t like pot, but I came down to a coin toss on the legalization vote (I voted no, but it was a hard decision).
My son commented about how, given the taxes on legal pot (which are less than on cigars), the illegal dealers are still doing good business because their pot is cheaper.
Now, what I explained to him was that the legal production and pricing just hasn’t really got up to speed yet. When it does, legal pot prices will likely come down, and the illegal dealers still face arrest and prison. But legal pot should be taxed, in my view at the same rate as tobacco – a rate that should be lower in my view, even though I don’t use any tobacco products either.

dentarthurdent on February 16, 2014 at 8:17 PM

Stoic Patriot on February 16, 2014 at 7:41 PM

You are failing to recognize some things, a couple being:

1) The Courts do not determine what your rights are. They determine what your legally recognized ‘rights’ are in the eyes of government. As government drifts further and further away from the principle that it is obligated to follow natural law, the gap between ‘legal rights’ and actual natural rights gradually becomes a chasm.

2) Just because a court decides that a rule such as the requirement to knock is not absolute does not mean we are to automatically rocket all the way down the slippery slope to saying the ridiculous warrant and violent actions engaged in by the government in this particular situation was not an abomination and a hideous violation of the rights of the citizen assaulted and riddled with bullets.

fadetogray on February 16, 2014 at 8:28 PM

The criminal element that still surrounds drugs exists because people can’t buy it from legitimate retailers. Same exact thing happened with alcohol, and when Prohibition (the old version, alcohol) ended, the criminal element’s involvement in alcohol moved on to other industries.

SoRight on February 16, 2014 at 8:01 PM

I’m not sure why it’s so hard to get conservatives to understand that the drug war is just another failed attempt at using government to address a social issue. That is not something government is good at. Legalize it and let the government tax it and I guarantee you that you won’t be able to hide any drugs from them. That’s something the government is good at.

DFCtomm on February 16, 2014 at 8:39 PM

According to the Constitution, which used to mean something, the government (i.e. police) does NOT have the right to be the instigators of a life and death situation in which they then proceed to gun down innocent people without those people being read their rights or to have their lives defended in court prior to their execution.
dentarthurdent on February 16, 2014 at 7:51 PM

Anytime they go to make an arrest, they create precisely the potential for that sort of situation. Although the Constitution does limit the government, it does not forbid the police from a broad category of “instigating” actions.

Yes, I did miss that other line.
And yet you keep defending the cops for going in guns blazing with what is at best a severely faulty search warrant and killing an old man who apparently did not actually have a gun in his hand, and lying about what happened.
So why do you keep making excuses for the cops?

dentarthurdent on February 16, 2014 at 7:59 PM

I am not defending the cops here. I have said they should face criminal charges. What I would oppose would be a general overhaul of police tactics or SOPs based on this case. There are plenty of folks who would like to see the equivalent of mall cops going in to serve warrants and conduct arrests. I tend to think that the “de-militarization” of the police is going to result in a lot more dead cops at the hands of a lot more bad people, and that it is not incumbent on the police, who already place their lives on the line to enforce the law, to place their lives in greater danger.

Stoic Patriot on February 16, 2014 at 8:40 PM

You are failing to recognize some things, a couple being:

1) The Courts do not determine what your rights are. They determine what your legally recognized ‘rights’ are in the eyes of government. As government drifts further and further away from the principle that it is obligated to follow natural law, the gap between ‘legal rights’ and actual natural rights gradually becomes a chasm.

2) Just because a court decides that a rule such as the requirement to knock is not absolute does not mean we are to automatically rocket all the way down the slippery slope to saying the ridiculous warrant and violent actions engaged in by the government in this particular situation was not an abomination and a hideous violation of the rights of the citizen assaulted and riddled with bullets.

fadetogray on February 16, 2014 at 8:28 PM

You’re 100% correct about natural law. And you’re completely correct that in this case (unlike the Cambridge case with Obama), the police acted stupidly, and because of it an innocent man is dead. That death requires we mete out justice against the offending officers.

Stoic Patriot on February 16, 2014 at 8:46 PM

If that sheriff isn’t an illegal he’s in a lot of trouble….

viking01 on February 16, 2014 at 9:03 PM

This was a terrible mistake of a raid gone bad. How many ways can you say the police were STUPID? (where’s Obama’s unsolicited opinion when you need one?)

I also think the Widow Mallory is rightly destined to become a quite wealthy woman.

marybel on February 16, 2014 at 9:06 PM

Didn’t G.Gordon Liddy have advice for when the Feds come-a-knockin’ that is applicable here? Yea, I think so…

weathermen on February 16, 2014 at 9:24 PM

Couldn’t they have just checked his dentures?

WryTrvllr on February 16, 2014 at 9:44 PM

I also think the Widow Mallory is rightly destined to become a quite wealthy woman.

marybel on February 16, 2014 at 9:06 PM

with the gov’t getting it all back shortly

WryTrvllr on February 16, 2014 at 9:45 PM

There is a need to cut back the budgets police departments have.

TfromV on February 16, 2014 at 10:29 PM

Whatever happened to the ideal in criminal law, Blackstone’s formulation, the principle that: “It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer”.

amr on February 16, 2014 at 7:10 PM

It still applies in illegal immigration deportations and DOJ investigations.
(We’re still waiting to find that innocent sufferer.)

AesopFan on February 16, 2014 at 10:37 PM

The “top” “law enforcement authority” in the “USA” is a criminal, and a criminal facilitator. How’s that “representative republic” working out for you?

bbhack on February 16, 2014 at 11:02 PM

I am not defending the cops here. I have said they should face criminal charges. What I would oppose would be a general overhaul of police tactics or SOPs based on this case. There are plenty of folks who would like to see the equivalent of mall cops going in to serve warrants and conduct arrests. I tend to think that the “de-militarization” of the police is going to result in a lot more dead cops at the hands of a lot more bad people, and that it is not incumbent on the police, who already place their lives on the line to enforce the law, to place their lives in greater danger.

Stoic Patriot on February 16, 2014 at 8:40 PM

This is where we have a fundamental disagreement, though I respect that it is an honest, good faith disagreement. You view the incident discussed in this case as the exception. I, however, believe that it is become more and more the norm with modern police forces in the United States.

I simply do not believe that the militarization of police is necessary to carry out most law enforcement. Yes, there are special circumstances, which is why SWAT teams were created in the first place. They were something other than the normal police officer, available in those unique situations where such levels of force were warranted. And they were used sparingly. Now, SWAT teams have almost become a relic of the past, as the everyday “cop on the beat” uses equivalent levels of weaponry and tactics.

It is clichéd, of course, but the old adage that “power corrupts” seems to apply here. When police offers have such overpowering levels of force at their routine disposal, it tends to go to their heads. Gone are the days when a situation such as this one would have been handled by staking out the house, conducting a thorough investigation, and then — after realizing that the sole occupant of the house was an 80-year-old man with little capacity to provide serious resistance — executing a search warrant during the daytime with a knock on the door, an approach that has worked successfully for quite some time. Now, knocking down the door and bursting into a citizen’s home in the middle of the night, armed with weaponry equivalent to what we use in the warzones of Afghanistan, has become the norm. And it’s disgusting. And a perversion of the Constitution.

Someone pointed out that “to protect and to serve” was never a requirement of police forces; merely the motto of one particular department. Never-the-less, I think it would do society good for our law enforcement agencies to take a step back and realize that “to protect and to serve” does embody what they are supposed to be. Yes, they are there to enforce our laws. But they are there to do so in order to protect and serve the citizenry. They do work for us; not the other way around. And it’s time that they went back to acting like it.

Shump on February 16, 2014 at 11:31 PM

The obvious solution for society here.

I just got this in email.
I think we all need organizations like this in our communities – to of course keep us all really really safe from ourselves…

http://eaglerising.com/4684/citizen-mocks-city-council-anti-gun-ordinance/

dentarthurdent on February 17, 2014 at 12:04 AM

sharrukin on February 16, 2014 at 8:10 PM

What you had was a law enforcement problem. Everything you are describing was illegal whether the person doing it was using meth or not. Last I checked, shooting up a neighbor’s building, killing their dogs and arson were all illegal. Why the Sheriff would not act is an issue separate from meth.

I’m not a drug user and wouldn’t start if it became legal. But at the same time drug users are not stopping because of its illegality either. I’d rather take out the enormous profit incentive for criminal gangs and let people do what they’re going to do anyhow. When cops aren’t wasting time and resources incarcerating potheads they can focus all their energy on people who ARE causing problems, like your neighbor.

SoRight on February 17, 2014 at 12:08 AM

Now, SWAT teams have almost become a relic of the past, as the everyday “cop on the beat” uses equivalent levels of weaponry and tactics.

Shump on February 16, 2014 at 11:31 PM

I agree with your assessment of the average cop, but I think the SWAT teams have gone the opposite direction from what you stated. It seems to me SWAT is now used for darn near everything – even going in to serve simple search or arrest warrants for overdue library books.
As such, I see SWAT not as a “special circumstance” unit as they originated, or even as a relic, but seem to be more as the routine enforcement arm – and to me that’s even more scary.

dentarthurdent on February 17, 2014 at 12:10 AM

Changes? With all respect, you’re being naive here, Ed. There will be no changes.

tenore on February 17, 2014 at 12:34 AM

As a law & order conservative, it dissapoints me to point out that the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department has been perhaps the most lawless “law enforcement” agency for a solid five decades running now.

Rusty Nail on February 17, 2014 at 12:54 AM

Cops are becoming Wussified. They are being told by the unions old white guys are armed and terrorists.

deptofredundancydept on February 16, 2014 at 2:18 PM

The police unions? Seriously? The unions have a lot to answer for, but some around here want to blame them for every damn thing they don’t like. Sounds like how the Libs blame everything on “racism”.

Long before the police unions came along, the “coppers” would knock folks upside the head with their night sticks if they were so inclined.

The bad policing is part of the territory-just the way many of them are (certainly not all). The militarization aspect comes from D.C.

As for the Officers Malloy and Reed comment by another poster, that was television, you know, entertainment, not real. I liked Adam-12 and Dragnet, but that was Jack Webb trying to show how cops should be not how they really were/are.

Dr. ZhivBlago on February 17, 2014 at 1:18 AM

Never forget the 3rd amendment.

Schadenfreude on February 16, 2014 at 2:18 PM

The 3rd Amendment is an archaic and obsolete relic that sprung from the minds of slave owning dead white men.

There are a myriad of social ills that could be quickly remedied by discarding the dinosaur concept of the 3rd Amendment.

It should be the official policy of the US Government to station highly trained, and well regulated Department of Homeland Security personnel in every American home.

In exchange for room, board, and financial support the security personnel will offer protection against home invasions, robbery attempts, burglary, and a whole host of other crimes.
(Side benefit…the gun fetishists won’t be able to whine about seconds counting and police being minutes away. Also, since the security would be armed with the latest military/police weaponry the nutters could satiate their small penis syndrome vicariously.)

But apart from said protection against home invasions and robberies countless other crimes could be prevented. From in home drug abuse, and domestic violence, to possession of trans-fats, salt, and hi-capacity soda containers.

They would also be in charge of green laws. Enforcing the mandatory recycling,and automobile mileage quota sections. Monitoring CO2 emissions, and energy and water use. Along other regulations,of course. Too many to get into here.

In addition to the security benefits, the economic benefits would be enormous. The unemployment rate would plummet as millions lined up to apply for the position.

Applicants with a history of economic, and social justice victimization would have their applications fast tracked.

This is an idea who’s time has come.

Abolish the 3rd Amendment and let America join the 21st Century.

soundingboard on February 17, 2014 at 1:57 AM

Dollars to doughnuts that .22 was a throwaway the cop brought with him to justify killing an unarmed man.

Practice for the police, conditioning for us.

Xavier on February 17, 2014 at 5:51 AM

Forget about assault rifles.

Citizens need Claymores!

Shy Guy on February 16, 2014 at 2:14 PM

Gives “Front Toward Enemy” a new meaning when you think about it!

HonestLib on February 17, 2014 at 7:59 AM

The militarization of police is getting out of hand, and it is the US citizen – innocent until proven guilty – who are paying the price. This is just one of many cases where the cops are out of control. They need to be charged with murder, and the case brought before a jury. They think they are above the law. Here in Texas, a cop was killed – shot by the home owner – as the cops executed a no knock raid. Of course the DA charged the citizen but the grand jury refused to indict for the death.

When the people are afraid of the government there is tyranny.
When the government is afraid of the people there is liberty.

MoreLiberty on February 17, 2014 at 8:06 AM

This happened as a result of bigotry. Don’t you know that every old white guy living in a trailer in the middle of nowhere is a meth manufacturer/dealer?

I want to see the evidence presented to the judge that authorized the warrant.

GeeWhiz on February 17, 2014 at 8:12 AM

Wrong. Your right to safety does not supersede theirs. An occupant is expected to identify an intruder, and if it is law enforcement, not engage. Other intruders though are fair game (with the exception of certain mandatory retreat states, whose politicians as far as I’m concerned ought to be dragged out back and shot).

Stoic Patriot on February 16, 2014 at 2:44 PM

A cop who just blew down the front door who is threatening the homeowner with firearms is nothing but a common criminal and should be shot dead for it.

Blowing down a door is NOT serving a warrant. It is NOT a legal means of service. Assuming the warrant itself was legal, which in this case, it was clearly not. Everyone involved in this travesty from the JUDGE who didn’t do his job as a SAFEGUARD, who accepted unattributed hearsay “evidence” as probable cause to the shooters should be tried for MURDER.

ConstantineXI on February 17, 2014 at 8:12 AM

As for the Officers Malloy and Reed comment by another poster, that was television, you know, entertainment, not real. I liked Adam-12 and Dragnet, but that was Jack Webb trying to show how cops should be not how they really were/are.

Dr. ZhivBlago on February 17, 2014 at 1:18 AM

It’s unfortunate but true that Sergeant Joe Friday isn’t typical of today’s police.

ConstantineXI on February 17, 2014 at 8:16 AM

Suicide and murder are illegal – unless you are young and in pain?

This must be why the police usually shoot more than once.

J_Crater on February 17, 2014 at 8:46 AM

Huckabee 2016 victory.

Hahahahahahahahahahaha…..lol…hahahahahahahahaha oh man,…that was a good one. There is nothing like going from one big government douche-bag (Obama) to another big government douche-bag like Huckabee.

MoreLiberty on February 17, 2014 at 8:50 AM

If they identify as police (i.e., shout “Police!” as mentioned previously), or you see them wearing police uniforms, then yes, I expect you to not simply shoot them.

Stoic Fascist on February 16, 2014 at 6:42 PM

corona79 on February 17, 2014 at 8:53 AM

Blowing down a door is NOT serving a warrant. It is NOT a legal means of service. Assuming the warrant itself was legal, which in this case, it was clearly not. Everyone involved in this travesty from the JUDGE who didn’t do his job as a SAFEGUARD, who accepted unattributed hearsay “evidence” as probable cause to the shooters should be tried for MURDER.

ConstantineXI on February 17, 2014 at 8:12 AM

Agreed. This is one perfect reason why I have no trust in these secret courts that rubber stamp the governments request for general warrants to grab all of your electronic messaging. Government – regardless of who is running the executive branch – can be relied on to be corrupt, and oppressive. That is why I have no use for big govt “conservatives” like Mitt, Huckabee, old sweater vest, Jeb, Ryan and the list goes on. To me, they aren’t much different compared to Obama.

MoreLiberty on February 17, 2014 at 9:00 AM

“When every Cabinet department fields its own SWAT team, something in government has gone horribly wrong. These people are not acting in the interests of Americans. The government is not your friend.

Cicero43 on February 16, 2014 at 7:31 PM ”

Just like Game of Thrones. Each department is its own fiefdom.

ralphio on February 17, 2014 at 9:10 AM

Badges?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqomZQMZQCQ

claudius on February 17, 2014 at 9:24 AM

Funny thing about cops.

They tend to believe anything about some person
provided they don’t actually hear it from said person.

TimBuk3 on February 17, 2014 at 9:26 AM

But if they were breaking down the door because they had a tip there might be illegal guns inside?

rhombus on February 17, 2014 at 9:27 AM

Why does Obama hate white people. After all, if the victim was black, we would hear from Obama and Holder. Why do they hate white people?

Aplombed on February 17, 2014 at 9:37 AM

But if they were breaking down the door because they had a tip there might be illegal guns inside?

rhombus on February 17, 2014 at 9:27 AM

There are more ways to arrest somebody than to blow down a door with explosives and storm in like it was D-Day.

Far less dramatic ways, far less serving of fragile egos cops apparently have these days, like staking out the place and ARRESTING HIM WHEN HE LEAVES…
(consequently the ATF had that kind of opportunity many times with David Koresh but opted instead for the more dramatic siege).

Which method is safer both for the target AND the cops?

Frankly I’m surprised that there aren’t more stories about police being SHOT in these kinds of raids than there are. And to be honest, a home invader DESERVES to be shot, regardless of why they are there.

ConstantineXI on February 17, 2014 at 9:39 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4