Police do welfare check, kill person they are supposed to help

[Quantum Windbag]

This doesn't even make sense. Once they ascertained he was fine they should have left.

The catch-line for the original television commercials was "I''ve fallen and I can't get up." Lots of people thought it was pretty funny, but at the same time realized that it reflected a deep concern, that older folks living on their own needed a way to summon help if something bad happened. Well, something bad happened to Kenneth Chamberlain, Sr.

From the New York Times:

Somehow the uncle, Kenneth Chamberlain Sr., a former Marine who had heart problems and wheezed if he walked more than 40 feet, triggered his Life Alert pendant. The Life Alert operator came on the loudspeaker in his one-bedroom apartment, asking: “Mr. Chamberlain, are you O.K.?” All of this is recorded. Mr. Chamberlain didn’t respond. So the operator signaled for an ambulance. Police patrol cars fell in behind — standard operating procedure in towns across America. Except an hour later, even as Mr. Chamberlain insisted he was in good health, the police had snapped the locks on the apartment door.
​

Simple Justice: Making a Scene

 

[Skull Pilot]

The government is trying to get us to believe that if something is "for our own good" that anything including agents of government violating our rights is justifiable.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Why didn't he just open the door so they could see he was fine?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

No agenda on the part of the article, nope none at all.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Why didn't he just open the door so they could see he was fine?

Why should he have to when he told them he was fine already?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Why didn't he just open the door so they could see he was fine?

Why should he? Is there a law that requires you to open a door when the police knock, especially when they do not actually have a warrant?

 

[whitehall]

Why would the victim say the Police were coming to kill him? Was he deranged? Did he arm himself? I'm not excusing the shooting but my guess is that there is more to the story than the NY Times spin on it. Too many Police cars for a 911 heart attack call and being armed with taser shotguns is not a normal aid case response. Most likely the victims family thought they were in danger and that's the way the call came in.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Why didn't he just open the door so they could see he was fine?

Why should he have to when he told them he was fine already?

As the saying goes.."You have the right to do certain things; but that doesn't mean you are right to do them"
He subscribed to a service to come to his aid if he needs help - he activates the service...and then refuses to open the door leading police to wonder if someone is forcing him to say he is alright.

He should have just opened his freaking door.

 

[George Costanza]

I don't have any problem with the police breaking in the door on the facts known to them at the time. Police have the right to kick a door in if they reasonably believe someone on the other side of the door is in danger of phsycial harm or death. In this case, the man behind the door was telling him he was OK. They still have the right to kick the door in. (Although the poster who commented, "why didn't he just open the door?" has a good point.)

According to the article, however, the next thing that happened after they kicked the door in was, they tasered him. Why? Not clear from the article. This is a very poorly written article, devoid of lots of facts that are very important to deciding who was right and who was wrong here.

The article mentions that the old man was "emotionally disturbed." Possibly what he was doing as a consequence of his "emotional disturbance" was the reason why they tasered him in the first place.

If he truly did pull a knife on the cops, their actions may well have been justified. Again, we don't know enough from the article. Where was he in relation to the cops when he pulled the knife? Lying on the floor, fifteen feet away, across the room? On his feet rushing at them? Kind of makes a difference.

Not enough info in the article.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I don't have any problem with the police breaking in the door on the facts known to them at the time. Police have the right to kick a door in if they reasonably believe someone on the other side of the door is in danger of phsycial harm or death. In this case, the man behind the door was telling him he was OK. They still have the right to kick the door in. (Although the poster who commented, "why didn't he just open the door?" has a good point.)

According to the article, however, the next thing that happened after they kicked the door in was, they tasered him. Why? Not clear from the article. This is a very poorly written article, devoid of lots of facts that are very important to deciding who was right and who was wrong here.

The article mentions that the old man was "emotionally disturbed." Possibly what he was doing as a consequence of his "emotional disturbance" was the reason why they tasered him in the first place.

If he truly did pull a knife on the cops, their actions may well have been justified. Again, we don't know enough from the article. Where was he in relation to the cops when he pulled the knife? Lying on the floor, fifteen feet away, across the room? On his feet rushing at them? Kind of makes a difference.

Not enough info in the article.

The people that wrote THAT article have an agenda and it is to make the cops and Government look bad. Of course lots of facts are missing.

 

[George Costanza]

I don't have any problem with the police breaking in the door on the facts known to them at the time. Police have the right to kick a door in if they reasonably believe someone on the other side of the door is in danger of phsycial harm or death. In this case, the man behind the door was telling him he was OK. They still have the right to kick the door in. (Although the poster who commented, "why didn't he just open the door?" has a good point.)

According to the article, however, the next thing that happened after they kicked the door in was, they tasered him. Why? Not clear from the article. This is a very poorly written article, devoid of lots of facts that are very important to deciding who was right and who was wrong here.

The article mentions that the old man was "emotionally disturbed." Possibly what he was doing as a consequence of his "emotional disturbance" was the reason why they tasered him in the first place.

If he truly did pull a knife on the cops, their actions may well have been justified. Again, we don't know enough from the article. Where was he in relation to the cops when he pulled the knife? Lying on the floor, fifteen feet away, across the room? On his feet rushing at them? Kind of makes a difference.

Not enough info in the article.

The people that wrote THAT article have an agenda and it is to make the cops and Government look bad. Of course lots of facts are missing.

Perhaps. Also possible - reporter who wants to file a story before getting all the facts.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I don't have any problem with the police breaking in the door on the facts known to them at the time. Police have the right to kick a door in if they reasonably believe someone on the other side of the door is in danger of phsycial harm or death. In this case, the man behind the door was telling him he was OK. They still have the right to kick the door in. (Although the poster who commented, "why didn't he just open the door?" has a good point.)

According to the article, however, the next thing that happened after they kicked the door in was, they tasered him. Why? Not clear from the article. This is a very poorly written article, devoid of lots of facts that are very important to deciding who was right and who was wrong here.

The article mentions that the old man was "emotionally disturbed." Possibly what he was doing as a consequence of his "emotional disturbance" was the reason why they tasered him in the first place.

If he truly did pull a knife on the cops, their actions may well have been justified. Again, we don't know enough from the article. Where was he in relation to the cops when he pulled the knife? Lying on the floor, fifteen feet away, across the room? On his feet rushing at them? Kind of makes a difference.

Not enough info in the article.

The people that wrote THAT article have an agenda and it is to make the cops and Government look bad. Of course lots of facts are missing.

Perhaps. Also possible - reporter who wants to file a story before getting all the facts.

Reread the story it is slanted as to make any decision by the cops look bad. The writer had an agenda.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Why didn't he just open the door so they could see he was fine?

Why should he have to when he told them he was fine already?

As the saying goes.."You have the right to do certain things; but that doesn't mean you are right to do them"
He subscribed to a service to come to his aid if he needs help - he activates the service...and then refuses to open the door leading police to wonder if someone is forcing him to say he is alright.

He should have just opened his freaking door.

He pushed the stupid button accidentally he told them that and he told them he was fine the fucking cops should have just left.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The people that wrote THAT article have an agenda and it is to make the cops and Government look bad. Of course lots of facts are missing.

Perhaps. Also possible - reporter who wants to file a story before getting all the facts.

Reread the story it is slanted as to make any decision by the cops look bad. The writer had an agenda.

It's not hard given the behavior of the power hungry pigs.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Why should he have to when he told them he was fine already?

As the saying goes.."You have the right to do certain things; but that doesn't mean you are right to do them"
He subscribed to a service to come to his aid if he needs help - he activates the service...and then refuses to open the door leading police to wonder if someone is forcing him to say he is alright.

He should have just opened his freaking door.

He pushed the stupid button accidentally he told them that and he told them he was fine the fucking cops should have just left.

As George points out - the article is clearly missing a whole host of details making it impossible to make an objective opinion.
Remember the infamous LA Riots over the Rodney King beating. Because a local California ABC affiliate (I think it was ABC) deliberately cutout 2 minutes of the video - it looked like a clear case of police brutality. Even to this day it is hard to find a video of that beating that includes the missing 2 minutes that showed King kicking, swinging and even knocking one officer on his ass after he threw him against a police car.

 

[editec]

Mistakes happen.

People get killed.

That's what happens when you design your police force to think about every encounter with the public as basically hostile.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Mistakes happen.

People get killed.

That's what happens when you design your police force to think about every encounter with the public as basically hostile.

This is also what happens when a guy acts over-the-top suspicious, and then pulls a knife out.

 

[sparky]

Having Homeland Security greasing even small town PD into a swat team mentality isn't without significant influence....~S~

 

[George Costanza]

Mistakes happen.

People get killed.

That's what happens when you design your police force to think about every encounter with the public as basically hostile.

This is also what happens when a guy acts over-the-top suspicious, and then pulls a knife out.

Excellent point. I keep coming back to that knife when trying to sort this thing out. We have to take it as true that he in fact had a knife. If so, that's a lot of weight on the side of the police action.

But, once again, there are other factors to consider. How far away was the man from the cops? What, if anything, was the man saying? Was he screaming that he was going to kill the cops with the knife as he advanced toward them, or was he holding the knife to his own stomach, screaming he was going to kill himself? What was he doing with the knife? Was he brandishing it or just holding it? Where was he holding the knife? Down at his side? Out in front of him? Was he lying on the floor or charging at the cops?

Just because a person has a knife does not necessarily mean the police should use lethal force against him. Could he have been tasered?

 

[FA_Q2]

I don't have any problem with the police breaking in the door on the facts known to them at the time. Police have the right to kick a door in if they reasonably believe someone on the other side of the door is in danger of phsycial harm or death. In this case, the man behind the door was telling him he was OK. They still have the right to kick the door in. (Although the poster who commented, "why didn't he just open the door?" has a good point.)

I am somewhat surprised at this. I absolutely have an issue with cops that seem to think they can enter your home for whatever reason. It is asinine. You are usually the anti-authoritarian here.

Granted, the article is light on the facts but if we take it at face value - the cops were called in by a company that made devices to alert when you had a medical need and he stated he was fine when they got there. Where is there any actual evidence or reason that he might have been a hostage? If there was something that really pointed to that circumstance, then, fine. They should enter at that point. That circumstance is highly unlikely however. I have a healthy distrust of authorities that start kicking doors in for 'wellness' calls. The entire idea is rather asinine.