3 Phoenix police officers shot, 1 dead

[TacMedic]

Well, barricaded suspect, actually a hostage call because of the roommate. Sad events.

 

[cool arrow]

But a social worker could have handled this, right?

This is terrible, those officers should not have been shot, and that Commander should still be alive. I honestly don't know what could have been done differently or better, but this is a solid reason why defunding the police is one of the most asinine things on the planet.

 

[Joe_Blacke]

From the body cam footage, which is truncated a good bit, it was hard to see how the responding officers could have anticipated the rapid escalation after seemingly having calmed things down. Moving up a staircase is a vulnerable position to be in.

What I don't understand is why the firearm wasn't secured immediately once enough officers were on scene. The caller stated the shooter had a firearm and that it was one of the primary reasons for the call.

I DO NOT know the details of the call, the response or the case. I'm also not Monday morning QB'ing anything.

This was a sad tragedy and shows how quickly a call can go from everybody's relatively calm and communicating to attempted murder.

Domestic violence calls are the most lethal for officers. Traffic stops are second. Imagine having to roll up on people arguing and firearm(s) may be present. Or walking up to a vehicle that you have no real idea who is in it. There is an element of service and potential sacrifice there that not many can accomplish.

They are the thin blue line. They are OUR thin blue line. The first line between us and anarchy or worse.

Our law enforcement; Sheriff's departments and Muncipal officers - are getting a bad rap right about now.

I, for one, am not buying it.

Alicia Hubert and Marissa Dowhan, thank you. Greg Carnicle, you gave all.

There isn't enough gratitude.

They were trying to get him outside where they would disarm him. They were obviously fearful that he would start shooting inside the house where other people were present. While they were in the kitchen, you could see one officer with her gun unholstered and behind her back. It was a fine line of officer safety and trying to not escalate the situation with an obviously unstable individual.

The way he hid behind the bedroom door, the way he kept his hands in his pockets in the kitchen, you could tell they thought he was dangerous.

When he started asking for the boss, and saying he wanted the boss to come out from cover, was a big tell that he was getting ready to start shooting. Announcing they were coming up the stairs to come get him probably set him over the edge.

 

[Joe_Blacke]

"3 Phoenix police officers shot, 1 dead"

Ah, I see. It was a bad strategy. See headline for result.

Thanks for the clarification. :roll:

Don’t understand the reason for the sarcasm.

I only surmised what we are trained on in these situations.

I think they did an excellent job overall. At least until the commander decided to take over. I think the commander made the mistake first by being there to add stress to his own officers, secondly by taking charge when he didn’t need to. He thought he was showing leadership, but when he went up the stairs announcing his intentions it was not the best decision. The other officers had no other decision but to follow and provide cover/support.

Many of these situations have no right answer. Just a series of less shitty ones. These scenarios are part of our training, and no normal Officer is usually going to announce to an armed and irrational subject their intent to come get them while putting themselves inside a fatal funnel. Unless someone’s life is in imminent danger, wearing them down is the right/less shitty move.

 

[Joe_Blacke]

Please educate us on when an officer is allowed to disarm someone inside of their own house when they have no evidence of a crime being committed? I don’t see the officers have any standing to attempt it under the law. Assuming they were justified, explain to us how they are going to disarm a potentially armed and dangerous individual when he won’t let them with arms distance? They would have to rush him, or draw down on him first, and not something you want to do when a person is keeping his hands hidden and several arms length away. They also didn’t let him back upstairs, as they kept an officer downstairs with him while another officer went to his room to retrieve the items he asked for.

Notice they even explained that he had rights. He was a lawful tenant. The 4th amendment protects him against unreasonable search and seizure. He hadn’t displayed a firearm. He hadn’t threatened anyone. No crime had been committed, so they couldn’t arrest and search him. They can only ask him to voluntarily be searched which he had refused. Per Terry vs. Ohio they could have patted him down for officer safety, except for the tactical problem of trying to get close to a potentially armed individual who was acting irrational.

No good options. Just a bunch of shitty variables. Legally, an officer could have drawn and pointed a gun at him hoping to get him to comply with a pat down. However, that is its own political mess. PHX PD is not known for supporting their officers if they don’t first try everything to de-escalate. Especially if it had ended in a shooting. Think Mesa PD and Brailsford. They would have been crucified. Justified or not.

 

[Joe_Blacke]

Well hindsight is good for learning, but isn’t good as a way to claim justification that is extemporaneous from the law. It seems you expect some perfect outcome, but it ignores reality. I have a feeling you’d be on the other side claiming police overreach had they disarmed him and this whole incident ended peacefully. Why disarm someone inside their own home who hasn’t committed a crime or threaten anyone? Looking at how this ended isn’t justification you can only go on the facts up to the point in time.

As a tenant he had rights under the Landlord Tenant Act. As a person in the US he had rights under the 4th Amendment. Officers are further constrained by department policy, as well as internal politics which keeps them from exercising their full powers under the law. For good measure, go ahead and consider the right to keep and bear arms. These are all limits we as a society have placed on law enforcement. Some for good reason, others not so much.

When there is no arrestable offense, such as in this case, they can only request a voluntary search of his person. He refused. Officer safety exigency would have allowed for a terry pat, but that couldn’t have been done safely. Justification statues would have allowed for the display of deadly physical force to obtain compliance with a terry pat, but the tactics on that suck. What do they do if he just shuts the bedroom door on them? What do they do if he decided to engage in a gunfight in either the upstairs hallway or kitchen. Remember they have to answer for potentially putting the other roommate in danger.

You may claim to say that you aren’t making judgements, but you post decidedly says that the officers were wrong. The person most responsible, other than the shooter, for Carnicle’s death is Carnicle himself. He underestimated the threat when he went charging up the stairs. Had he stayed downstairs, he would most likely have been alive.

I find no fault in any of the officers actions. Technically Carnicle wasn’t at fault legally, but it wasn’t tactically sound. Hence the outcome.

 

[Joe_Blacke]

Your intentionally trying to be ignorant. I’m glad the world doesn’t work the way you seem to think it should.

Use of force, search and seizure, and arrests are all based on well established legal statutes and courtroom findings. Trying to beyond what is legally allowed puts the officer in a position where they are now guilty of breaking the law. Cops loose their jobs all the time for things like unlawful imprisonment and illegal search and seizure. Depending on the offense, some go to jail. But hey, what do I know...I’ve only been a cop here in AZ and actually been required to learn these things. Sure wish this forum was around when I went through the Academy, so I could have told all those instructors how wrong they were.

You seem to willfully misstate and twist arguments to try and suit your own opinion which isn’t based on fact. No two situations are the same, be it a DV or traffic stop. Searching a vehicle incident to arrest doesn’t give the officers in this case to do anything than other than what I already described which is a voluntary search (denied) or a search at gunpoint which wasn’t tactically sound.

Obviously there is no point in trying to educate you on use of force, search and seizure, and required burdens of proof to initiate an arrest. You intend on arguing without point. Your rationale behind your arguments is seriously flawed and compounded by you lack of reading comprehension.

 

[Joe_Blacke]

You are just simply ignorant. Doesn't take much trying it appears.

Coming from a guy that can't be honest about an air conditioning repair - I think I'll be just fine. You got your ass handed to you on a platter there, too. Is their any low you won't stoop to to try and prevail in a discussion? I guess when integrity doesn't matter - it's the place you turn to. Flail away at me. Apparently you've already realized that the discussion has moved beyond your ability to defend the barely tepid points you hope to make.

Are you a cop? Or do you just play one on the internet? Because you blather on about generalities about 'legal statutes and courtroom findings'. I mean, it doesn't get much more stupid than saying "...a search at gunpoint which wasn’t tactically sound" when the result of failing to do so got three officers shot to pieces. Oh, you're dancing that line. You're now saying it ISN'T illegal for them to have performed a search on the subject (which previously you alluded to being illegal) but that it wasn't "tactically sound."

Moving goalposts much?

I delineated precisely what I was discussing when it comes to dealing with a suspect that is suspected to be armed and dangerous. And that the officers were well withing their legal rights to have done so, had they chosen to in this specific situation. They did not and we see the results. There is no code, statute or law that states the officers in this situation were legally prevented from searching the subject who had been reported to have a firearm. You keep bloviating about it being illegal - so point to the law.

Educate me.

You can't - more like you won't, because it doesn't exist in your altered reality.

You can't educate anyone here, because you're gas-lighting and popping smoke everywhere.

Your entire last post was about as vacuous as it gets. You took four paragraphs to say exactly nothing.

The officer actions and inaction contributed in a large way to them being shot. When there was nothing legally from preventing them from ascertaining if there was a weapon present or if the subject had access to it.

If there is a legal barrier, point to it specifically. I just made popcorn.

Wait a minute! Is this the great Brian who ripped me off? That explains a lot. A guy who puts a lien on someone property AFTER they got paid. A guy who charged over $1600 for a repair that was supposed to be under warranty and destroyed the manufacturers tag with the info when he got caught! The one who threaten to walk off the job with the whole system disassembled, leaving me high and dry in the middle of summer, after he got caught rather than own up to it. The one who after all that couldn’t put the right piston into the evap coil and couldn’t even seal up the air handler after he took it apart. Not to mention his string of failed marriages (what are we on, number 6 now?), and failed businesses.

Dude you are seriously messed up.

A basic primer for you:

Search and seizure (even for weapons), is governed at a high level by the 4th amendment. Courts have ruled on this for generations. Law enforcement is greatly limited to this affect on someone in their own home. Allowances for this are 1) warrant (didn’t have one). 2) exigent circumstances such as destruction of evidence, hot pursuit, life and limb, and evidential discovery. Life and limb only applies if he was in the act of hurting someone, not just potentially able to hurt someone, so exigent spcircumstances don’t apply. 3) arrest (no crime committed so he wasn’t under arrest) 4) voluntarily (he refused). 5) officer safety (terry pat). I’ve already described it was a bad idea to try it from what has been shown in the video. They would have either had him shut the door, and had to enter a highly dangerous situation or highly likely engage in a gunfight inside the residence with a innocent third party nearby. The initial officers on scene made the right call.

You assume what they did is because they didn’t want to disarm him. That is stupid. They wanted to disarm him, and were waiting for the most opportune time when It was justifiable to do so. Order of priority is innocent 3rd party safety, officer safety, suspect safety, voluntary compliance with the law, unvoluntary compliance (arrest/detention/other use of force). Carnicle broke the order of precedence and put officer safety and innocent third party safety and escalated trying to get him out of the house (voluntary and/or unvoluntary compliance).

So what name have you changed you company to this time? You still trying to hide assets?

 

[Limper]

Jager and Joe_Blacke. You both need to just chill. Early afternoon yesterday you both started discussing the subject. And in a couple of posts it devolved into a personal turd hurling contest. If you go back and look at the posts its like you two are standing on Greg Carnicle's grave hurling drunken insults at each other. Look again at the title of the post. Go back and review your previous posts and tell me I am wrong. This thread is not about how much you are "right", how much you dislike each other, or who screwed who. It's about 3 Phx cops who got shot and one is dead. I worked in the Phoenix Police crime lab for 12 years. I did not know Greg Carnicle personally but I was familiar with him. Any important or constructive thoughts in the posts is getting drowned out by the noise of your personal issues.

 

[xerts1191]

Sad

 

[curtmini14]

wow we have some real fine pieces of human dung on this forum.

 

[cool arrow]

sweet mother of dragons, I am not even going to read that looooong dialogue, you guys need to hug it out or something, start your own thread, stop hijacking this one with your beefs and stay on topic