Quote:
Originally Posted by rockymtnchief
Hell no, licensed or not.
I originally agreed that he handled this wrong.
But, what's the difference between knocking on the front or back door? The complaint said that the shooting came from the back yard. He went where the trouble was reported. If they were shooting out front, should he stand outside the fence and yell until someone came to the door?
Going through a yard gate is not the same as kicking in a door.
BTW...I also think the last quote was unprofessional.
|
But from a strictly legal perspective, it is. This yard would be considered part of the domicile and thus by entering it, you're all but walking in the front door.
And had he announced his presence in
any fashion, the dog would have alerted and this would've been avoided. I still believe fervently that he should've gone to the front door and knocked; this was not a hostage situation. At the same time, simply yelling over the fence or knocking on the gate would have done the trick. The dog would've barked and this guy would've known not to go in the back yard.
It was raw recklessness that led to this. This officer's refusal to exercise basic common sense (and, IMO, follow pretty standard Constitutional procedures), created a problem where there wasn't one.
All the hypothetical ninjas in bushes and dead bodies hidden behind fences can't change that. The facts of this situation are what they are and the officer engaged in supervening conduct that came well after the benign actions of the owner. This is the conduct that created the problem.
Like I said - had Columbus not discovered America, this could all be avoided. At some point it's the intervening actions of a new actor that have to be considered the catalyst. Whatamuss and the rest of the apologists are lucky that there was a city ordinance banning spud guns; I guarantee not all cities have said ordinance. And this cop would have behaved in the same manner regardless of the illegality of the spud gun. He's using it as a convenient scapegoat for his reckless conduct.
Legally speaking, he may have an argument that his conduct was acceptable. However, from a purely pragmatic standpoint, knowing what we know and what the officer has stated, it was just reckless and stupid.
But Buford T. has his back and those numbskulls will certainly pay that fine.