Troopers shoot and kill man in Monroe County

[PA86]

They're statistically irrelevant (tens of thousands of people still die unattended), and have the added "benefit" of occasionally killing folks who are otherwise not near death. At best, it's a very expensive net null.

At best, it's a very expensive net null.

Pretty weird math there.

One would usually weigh the costs (the very few people that die as a result of welfare checks) against the benefit (the thousands upon thousands that are helped). Not sure how you somehow introduced the thousands who were totally unaffected by a welfare check because they never received one into the equation.

They should be done away with, unless someone proactively opts in, and perhaps pays a small fee (kind of like the local "ambulance club").

I don't know what an ambulance club is. I do know anyone can, and should be able to call 911 and receive appropriate access to emergency services.

[gnbrotz]

One would usually weigh the costs (the very few people that die as a result of welfare checks) against the benefit (the thousands upon thousands that are helped). Not sure how you somehow introduced the thousands who were totally unaffected by a welfare check because they never received one into the equation.

I don't believe that "thousands and thousands" are helped every year, as a result of a "welfare check" call made by a third party. They are justified because they "help", but they actually help very few compared to the resources spent and there are many many more who might truly benefit that simply slip through the cracks in the system, and never even see a call made, so the dollars spent vs. actual needs met is a poor return. IMO.

I don't know what an ambulance club is.

I voluntarily pay a fixed fee to my local ambulance company, and if I need their services, I pay no further out of pocket cost.

I do know anyone can, and should be able to call 911 and receive appropriate access to emergency services.

For themselves, absolutely.

For "I haven't seen my neighbor in a week.", absolutely not.

[streaker69]

Does the standard protocol involve interviewing the requester as to the condition of the person to be checked?
If so, why didn't they know she was 3/4 deaf? And had previous breakins or incidents?
Did they use their Paging System on the trucks/vehicles to broadcast a request for entry?

How much information did they obtain from the daughter to prevent facing an unknown situation?
Did they explain to the daughter that their responding may put themselves at risk & her mother as well?


Many confrontations with police or other governmental agencies are precipitated by the 'POWER' mentality of the responders. They believe they have ULTIMATE POWER over any situation and any person involved MUST OBEY! Were they taught that THEY ARE PUBLIC SERVANTS, NOT PUBLIC MASTERS? Or were they taught to TAKE CONTROL OF THE SITUATION, no matter what RIGHTS they violate?

I support the police (and other governmental agents) as PUBLIC SERVANTS - but they need to be trained properly to RESPECT THE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE who they are supposed to be serving!

...

They found an open window, why didn't they have the daughter stand out there and yell for her mother. She probably would have responded if she heard a voice she knew. But nope, they had to get in there in a split second, no time for common sense.

[Emptymag]

They found an open window, why didn't they have the daughter stand out there and yell for her mother. She probably would have responded if she heard a voice she knew. But nope, they had to get in there in a split second, no time for common sense.

Is that what actually happened, or is that what you played out in your head to justify the outrage?


I could be swayed by your anger if I knew what actually happened - or not - depends of what actually happened.

[PA86]

They found an open window, why didn't they have the daughter stand out there and yell for her mother. She probably would have responded if she heard a voice she knew. But nope, they had to get in there in a split second, no time for common sense.

In all likelihood they had probably already knocked, announced, attempted to have the daughter call the house, and looked into whatever windows and doors they could have before deciding to make entry. That's typically how it goes.

But... some folks just want to assume the worst for various reasons.

[streaker69]

Is that what actually happened, or is that what you played out in your head to justify the outrage?


I could be swayed by your anger if I knew what actually happened - or not - depends of what actually happened.

I'm basing it upon what was actually posted in the facebook post. It's there, read it yourself. No point in time does it say the daughter yelled in, doesn't even say they yelled in before entering. They clearly state they made a split second decision to enter, while yelling, and probably not even able to listen for a reply, since there would have been much noise and grunting while trying to get two guys through a window.

Like I said, they took the time to write something rather detailed post, so if something else happened, why wasn't it written? The question then, is it procedure to make that split second decision and enter the home before they try to establish communication? If that's the procedure then something probably needs to be changed, since two guys almost got killed.

We'll probably never actually know what really happened. So you can assume something else happened, or you can take their own words for it.

[unclejumbo]

I don't care if there is NEVER a bad outcome. There are some things that do not fall with the purview of what the police should be doing. EVER.

Welfare checks is one of those things, as are all of the "feel good/community policing" things that get posted on social media, like mowing an old lady's lawn (while on duty) or pulling people over to cite some made-up law like "driving without ice cream" and handing out cones to "help" the driver be in compliance.

If a LEO has a charitable heart, let them go out on their own time and find a cause. Doing "good deeds" at taxpayer expense is theft.

I'd also be more ok with someone who kills out of pure bloodlust than one who justifies it as necessary to "help the community". At least the first is being honest with themself. And defunding the police? I'm perfectly ok with removing whatever percentage of their budget would typically cover the annual expense of "welfare check" calls.

Thanks for your opinion. Many people would disagree with you. One being Streaker as he mentions "officer friendly" and you want officer friendly fired for theft. And so goes the life of an LEO and the profession of policing. It's usually a no win because absolutely everyone, who has never, ever put on a badge and gun belt knows better than those of us who have, the exact way each incident should be handled and how the LEO fucked it up royally.

Every LEO is exactly like the one that gave you a ticket, yelled at you or otherwise made you so very angry. We all are evil bastards that secretly want to kill you. We hate everyone that isn't a cop which is why nearly all of us will risk life and limb to save you. Why we'll head toward the danger while you're going as fast as you can the other way. Why we'll enter burning buildings to save people because we got there before the fire company.

None of us that go into law enforcement do it because we think we can help people. We just want the opportunity to kneel on your neck until you're dead. And if we can't do that, we'll take whatever opportunity we can to shoot you, or your dog. We're all bullies filled with blood lust, just waiting for our chance. We all lie, cheat and steal while were waiting for that ultimate prize, the notch on the pistol grip.

It's fine, it goes with the territory. Everyone knows how to be a professional sports coach, an LEO or a POTUS better than those in the position. Yet, at least with being an LEO, those folks never seem willing to step up and lead from front, just bitch from the back row.

[PA86]

I'm basing it upon what was actually posted in the facebook post. It's there, read it yourself. No point in time does it say the daughter yelled in, doesn't even say they yelled in before entering.

It also doesn't even say they put their apparatus in park.

Would it be reasonable to assume they kept the truck in neutral?

Or is it more likely that certain things happened (like they parked their truck, they knocked on the door) and that the facebook post simply didn't contain every possible conceivable detail?

[streaker69]

In all likelihood they had probably already knocked, announced, attempted to have the daughter call the house, and looked into whatever windows and doors they could have before deciding to make entry. That's typically how it goes.

But... some folks just want to assume the worst for various reasons.

What makes your assumption of what they did any more sound than their own words? As pointed out, they made a split second decision to enter, a split second decision that didn't need to be made. You're assuming facts not in evidence, and the only evidence we have is what's in that post.

[PA86]

What makes your assumption of what they did any more sound than their own words?

Well having been on many of these calls myself, I can draw upon actual experience of how they typically happen, and I can correlate that knowledge with the facebook post and reasonably infer that certain things very likely happened even if they weren't specifically mentioned in the post.

You, however, seem consistently hellbent on interpreting events in the worst possible light and without any actual practical experience or knowledge.

It seems to me that you simply have an axe to grind with anyone you perceive as being some kind of authority.