Lake County Police Shoot and Kill Wrong Man, Andrew Lee Scott

i think the officers should be treated like any other killer sit in jail no pay they are crimminals rite

Few people are more skeptical of police and their actions (or inactions, as the case may be) than I. My homeless and prostituted clients are routinely treated badly -- sometimes even harrassed and abused... sometimes even have their rights violated -- by police...

...so I pray no one here assumes that I am a blindly-loyal apologist for law enforcement because of what you're about to read, here.

However, both fundamental fairness, and also my every spidey sense that we've all just not gotten the whole story, yet -- and/or that whatever is the story, there's more to it than most, here, are assuming -- dictates that we should all probably start looking at this thing another way... or at least consider it.

I am, here and now, going to present said other way. Yes, it's long, but there's a lot to cover.

I don't know who is Melissa Darcey, the author/contributor of the story to which I'm now responding. I don't know if she's white or black or hispanic or what. I don't know if she's liberal or conservative; or if she's from da' hood (or sympathetic to the plight of those who are)...

...but I do know this: The view she as posited in this piece which suggests, as her piece's final paragraph states, that incidents like this (or at least the folklore which often surrounds them) give citizens reason to fear and avoid law enforcement...

...it is that very kind of view and mentality which contributes to people doing really stupid things like answering their front door with a gun in their hand; or, worse, pointing it at police officers. Or which makes them argue with and fight police officers if they have contact with them.

Part of what every child in America should be taught from his/her earliest cognitive moments in life is that while they, of course, have rights, the time to assert virtually any of them except the right to remain silent is nearly never during a moment of confrontation of any kind with police out in the field; that the time to assert rights (other than, again, the right to remain silent), and to deal with police having possibly violated any of them along the way, is later, at the police station or in Court, when things are more civilized and no one involved is concerned about losing their lives... when lawyers, and not either the suspect or the police, are controlling things.

Anyone who's ever watched the TV show "COPS" knows that most (or at least many) of those whom the show's police officers encounter have never been taught that. Worse, because of attitudes fostered and even promoted by the likes of Ms Darcey's insensible "this incident will only give citizens more reasons to fear and avoid law enforcement" posit, seeing police as mortal enemy in an almost "we're at war" sort of way has become enculturated into the occupants of many inner-city neighborhhoods and other places.

And so those so enculturated end-up doing really stupid things like fleeing plice, or fighting/resisting, or trying to explain and talk themselves out of trouble...

...none of which, even the uncareful viewer of shows like "COPS" could not help but notice, ever works. Instead, much of it usually results in either more charges (such as resisting arrest) being filed; or, worse, results in the suspect's either inadvertent confession or at least placing oneself at the scene of the crime; the latter of which, in terms of evidentiary value for prosecutors, is almost as good as a confession.

I always counsel my clients -- and anyone else who'll listen to me -- to always, always, always at least physically cooperate with police; to never challenge them, never confront them, never run, never fight, never have a smart mouth. Instead, always say lots of "yes sirs" and/or "yes ma'ams," as appropriate; always be peaceful and peaceable (there is a difference) in demeanor and reaction to whatever the officers do or say; always go where they tell you to go, and do what they tell you to do; and always accurately identify yourself. The Supreme Court ruled only a few years ago that we all must at least identify ourselves (though usually only if asked), even if we intend to subsequently invoke our right to silence, thereafter. Police, trust me, will always accurately figure out who you are within 24 hours, anyway; and the Court ruling gave 'em the right to hold you until they do, even if they might not have held you for whatever else they think you might have done. So you might as well just always tell 'em who you really are, if asked, and not fight at least that. Beyond that, though, SAY NOTHING. In fact, there's a single word that you should say, that will protect you immensely. Keep reading...

Even if you know that police have no right to stop and/or detain you; even if you know they've got the wrong person; even if they're abusive or blatantly violate what you know, for a fact, to be your rights (but especially if you're not sure), always, always, always be peaceful and peaceable, be physically cooperative, say lots of "yes ma'ams" and/or "yes sirs," identify yourself if asked, and they say NOTHING else...

...er... well... except the word "lawyer," that is. No matter what police claim or promise; now matter what they threaten; no matter the awful consequences they allege will befall you if you dont' talk and "help them" (or, worse, "help them to help you"), do not talk (other than the "yes sirs" and "yes ma'ams" and identifying yourself), and simply saying the word "lawyer." Say absolutely NOTHING else.

Don't fall for the police officer's almost certain, "okay, that's your right, but if you lawyer-up, I can't help you anymore; they'll throw the book at you; you'll go to prison, for sure" or any of that kind of classic cop nonsense. Not a syllable of it is true. And especially don't believe that if you talk, as the officer is encouraging you to do, it'll all get somehow "sorted out" and/or settled, and that you'll be released. Trust me, you won't be. It's nearly NEVER true... ever!

Instead, stand, steadfastly, by the word "lawyer." Period. And prepare to go to jail. It's not the end of the world. Get your wits about you and just get through it... but without somehow making it worse for yourself by having either resisted, or having opened your big mouth and either incrminated yourself, or put yourself into a position that will be harder, because of your big mouth, for your lawyer to ultimately undo... whether said undoing is at the police station, or later, in court.

Ideally, if you can keep your head about you, and not goof it up, you should say that you absolutely want to answer the officers' questions and explain the situation; that you're confident that once you do, said officers will realize that you've done nothing wrong; and, moreover, that you will absolutely answer all their questions and give them any information they desire...

...but only with your lawyer present. Whatever your lawyer says you can say to police, you will, indeed, say to police, you should tell them... adding that you will completely cooperate...

...but not until your lawyer is present. Period. Until then, you should say that you have nothing (beyond, of course, identifying yourself, and saying "yes sir" or "yes ma'am," as appropriate) to say. Nothing! Additionally, if you can add that no silent actions of yours while in police presence -- no head either shakes or nods, or other common forms of physical and non-verbal indication or communication -- should be interpreted as an answer or response of any kind to, or an acknowledgement of, anything police say or non-verbally communicate to you, or ask of you; that you want a lawyer and are invoking your Constitutional right to remain silent, both verbally and non-verbally, is all you have to say.

Sadly, most suspects, in the throes of being arrested, don't have the presence-of-mind to articulate all that exactly correctly; and so my advice is to first say all the yes-sirs-and-ma'ams, and to identify yourself if asked...

...but, beyond that, to utter only the single word "lawyer" -- like a mantra; or as if it's the only word in the English language you know -- in response to absolutely anything and everything else that police say to, or ask of, you, either verbally or non-verbally.

Lawyer, lawyer, lawyer, lawyer: That word only... even in response to questions like "are you thirsty" or "are those handcuffs too tight." Utter nothing but the word "lawyer" in response to absolutely EVERYTHING (beyond identifying yourself), and that's it. Simple as that. Beyond that, just be physically cooperative in every way; and discipline yourself to just get through it... no matter how long it takes.

And DO NOT change that tactic, even once in a jail cell... especially do not talk about anything (other than, perhaps, the weather, or the previous night's baseball game... and even then, be careful) to other prisoners, and especially guards. Even the jail doctor and/or nurses can't be trusted. And all telephone calls are monitored and recorded, so say NOTHING on the phone, either... even to your lawyer. Speak to him/her anything other than "I've been arrested, come help me" only in person, and only when s/he says you can safely so do.

Arrested persons would be STUNNED to learn the inadvertent (and inadvertently incriminating) information that could ultimately harm them by answering what they think are simple questions; or by even nodding their heads in agreement to what they think are simple and inconsequential things which police might say or do. Actual silence is often interpreted as agreement or accord, but uttering the word "laywer" is an affirmative response in the sense that it eliminates the possibility of your silence being interpreted as agreement with, or ackknowledgement of, anything the officers say to, or ask of, you.

Lawyer, lawyer, lawyer, lawyer, lawyer: That's the only word you utter. If you have the self-control, even make it what you say instead of "ouch" if police hit you. Lawyer, lawyer, lawyer, lawyer. That's it. Nothing else, no matter how tempted you are to try to explain or talk your way out of it. Lawyer, lawyer, lawyer, lawyer. That's it!

The time for holding police accountable for doing things to you which they had no right to do is NOT in the field, when police are first confronting you. No matter what! Rather, the time for that is later; and all your assertions of rights and accusations against police for violating them (if, in fact, that's what happened) should be both later, and ONLY through your LAWYER.

Period.

If every citizen would take that both posture and attitude whenever they have contact with police, there'd almost be no need for police to carry guns, or nightsticks, or pepper spray, or tazers... like in the UK. Of course, the UK doesn't have the Second Amendment (the right to bear arms), and so it's easier for them to not allow their police officers to carry weapons. We, in the US, on the other hand, have gun-toting citizenry everywhere; and police are trained to assume that any person whom they encounter could (and would, if given the chance) produce a weapon and kill them dead.

That's the thing that people forget: That officers are trained to assume that their lives are in danger until said officers have proved to themselves otherwise. And the way officers are trained to prove that to themselves is by doing things like searching for weapons (in the form of pat-downs, and vehicle and residence searches), and also subduing/controlling the suspect and rendering him/her unable to harm them by doing things like handcuffing them and placing them into the back seat of the patrol car... even, sometimes, if they're not under arrest yet.

Police are trained to protect their own lives, and the lives of innocent others, at almost any and all costs; and the suspect is nearly always last on the officers' lists of "innocent" others.

And given the nature of our society, and the plethora of its weapon-carrying citizens (and, worse, said citizens' unhesitating willingness to use said weapons), that's exactly how police SHOULD be trained. Shame on anyone who believes otherwise!

Yes, police occasionally go too far; but nearly never, anymore, in Rodney-King-like sorts of ways. Police officer training has come so, so, so far since those bad old days of rampant police brutality that it has become virtually non-existant... especially if the suspect is physically cooperative. That said, whenever I watch the TV show "COPS," and the officers exhibit extraordinary self-control even when the suspect is trying to harm them, I can't help but wonder how things would be different for said suspect if the cameras weren't there...

...especially if it's in a place Chicago, where the cops are so tough and sometimes ruthless that even police officers from tough places like New York get a little chill just thinking about it.

But the problem is that nothing can be done about any of that out in the field, where police are confronting the suspect. In that time and place is not where the suspect should be asserting any rights other than the one to remain silent. Period.

Therefore, the response of the citizen should always be physical cooperation, self-identification when asked, and, beyond that, silence (in the form of the repeated word "lawyer" in response to ANY police question or statement). Simple as that.

Andrew Lee Scott would quite likely be alive this very moment if he had both been trained that way as a child citizen, and had behaved that way as an adult one.

And the fact that we all, as citizens, must (or at least should) so behave whenever having contact with police doesn't equate to that, therefore, we need FEAR police. Police are simply doing what they're trained to do; what the Courts have ruled that they're allowed to do in order to protect themselves, and others innocent, from the potential harm which a weapons-carrying citizenry, such as we have, here, in the US, can do to them. That some police officers occasionally abuse the privilege does not summarily negate those facts.

Again, in most (and by that I mean nearly all, these days) cases, all the suspect need do to protect himself/herself is physically cooperate with a both peaceful and peaceable demeanor and reactions to police words and actions; to identify himself/herself when asked; and to remain silent (in the form of repeating the word "lawyer") beyond that.

That's how the game is played in this country, and only when the likes of Mr. Scott go off script and do unexpected or even bad things can sometimes equally bad things, at the hands of police officers, happen in response.

The other fault I find in Ms Darcey's writing, here, is when she wrote...

"The biggest question most have is: Even if you must shoot at the man because of a threat, did you have to kill him?"

...and...

"...Herrell is standing by his deputies, explaining, 'The bottom line is, you point a gun at a deputy sheriff or plice officer, you’re going to get shot;' But killed? Shooting and killing a man are two very different things."

No, Ms Darcey, they're not. It is a both convoluted and grossly wrong-headed notion that guns should -- or, perhaps more accurately, even COULD -- be used to do anything other than KILL whenever they're actually used... by police or anyone else. Your glaring ignorance of that has caused you to posit a notion in your piece, here, that even the law doesn't recognize.

Even if you shoot someone in the leg (a seemingly non-lethal place in the minds of those who don't know any better), it can still (and, in fact, likely will) be lethal if the bullet nicks or severs the huge femoral artery. Gunshot wounds which result in femoral artery dissection often -- in fact, usually -- result in the victim bleeding-out before the ambulance can even arrive... sometimes before it's even called. Only if someone on the scene has the both presence of mind and skill to compress the wound and stop (or at least slow) the bleeding might such a wound be non-lethal.

And so, then, with even the leg off-limits for avoiding inflicting lethal injuring with a gun, precisely where, Ms Darcey, would you have had police shoot Mr. Scott? Hmmm? In the arm, maybe? There's a huge artery (though not as large as the femoral) which goes down the middle of that, too. Or how 'bout the stomach? Ha! Good luck missing the aorta (which is so big that it makes the femoral look almost like a capillary), or the spine (which, if hit, could -- likely would -- result in paralysis and, quite possibly ultimately, death). Good luck, as well, finding a single organ in the thorax -- especially the heart, lungs or aorta -- which could safely be shot by a gun in a non-lethal way. And, of course, a gunshot wound to the head -- or even the neck -- is nearly always lethal... even more so than to the heart or aorta. Shooting in the foot or hand might work, but then you'd risk crippling the guy for life; and, anyway, such requires more accuracy than is usually possible. Keep reading...

If you, Ms Darcey, had any handgun training (or even just knowledge) at all, then you'd realize that it's nothing -- and I mean NOTHING -- like you see on TV. Ask any police officer or soldier who's had extensive training in the use of handguns and you'll be told that it's lucky if a shot made under duress comes even within five feet of its intended target. I'm serious. It's THAT inaccurate. Even if the gun is outfitted with a laser so that a little red dot is placed on the target, the simple act of pulling the trigger sufficiently moves the muzzle of the weapon that there is usually no assurance that the bullet will actually hit wherever the little red dot appeared... or anywhere even NEAR it, truth be told.

Oh, don't get me wrong, it's not like the days of the old west when a six-shooter was so inaccurate that there was no telling WHERE a bullet might go...

...hence the reason you always see everyone running for their lives and diving under tables in movies whenever there's going to be a showdown in the old saloon; because first-hand written 19th century accounts of such moments bear witness to both the weapons' gross inaccuracy, and that everyone around any use of them would run for their lives and dive under tables and whatnot.

Today's handguns -- especially in the hands of someone highly trained to use them -- are far more accurate than that. But any cop will tell you that when the circumstances are not controlled (as they are on the shooting range), and the bullets start flying, and everyone with a gun in his/her hand is worried that these might be the final moments of their lives, accuracy of virtually any kind goes right out the window. It's nothing, at all, like you see on TV; and even if it were, accuracy of the sort needed to, for example, shoot someone in the leg without also nicking or severing the femoral artery -- espcially under duress -- is simply impossible. Such accuracy is even difficult (and, in any case, insufficiently reliable) on the shooting range, with the gun in the hands of a true marksman. Short-barreled guns are simply not sufficiently accurate for anyone -- and I mean ANYONE -- to use them for making non-lethal wounds in human beings... under ANY circumstances; but especially under duress in the field.

And so, then, there is no such thing as a non-lethal -- at least in terms of intent (and also in the eyes of the law) -- gun shot.

Period. The very term is oxymoronic.

Anyone -- police or otherwise -- who shoot for any reason may always be assumed to be so doing with the intent to kill; and that's how the law sees it, too. Guns and bullets -- even in the hands of master marksmen -- are insufficiently accurate to be thought of as being capable of only wounding. A gun is a lethal weapon, no matter how used, and/or no matter the intent of the one using it. And that's how it should be.

There is, then, no such thing as not shooting to kill. If you ou shoot, then you shoot to kill. If you don't intend to kill, then don't shoot. It's a simple as that.

That's why even only pointing a gun at someone is such a serious crime in most states. Guns, even in the hands of police are nothing with which to be trifled...

...and so, then, when someone like Mr. Scott, whose training in the use of a handgun -- and/or whose intent for its use -- either ultimatelly in fact, or especially in the heat of the moment, the police officers involved cannot possibly know, appears with a fireable weapon in the form of a handgun...

...and especially if he raises it (or it even appears that he's going to) at and/or against said police officers...

...then said someone like Mr. Scott has usually signed his/her own death warrant; and may almost certainly count on being shot and killed before he can even level his gun at anyone.

That's how police are trained, and that's as it should be.

If Mr. Scott had been trained, as a child citizen, to cooperate, as an adult citizen, with police -- even if said police are wrong -- until a lawyer may intercede and bring order to the situation under circumstances more controlled than those possible out in the field...

...then Mr. Scott would likely still be alive. And, given what we now know about him not actually having been the suspect which police sought, he'd not only be alive, now, but he'd also not be in police custody, or even have any charges filed against him.

He'd likely, in fact, have been safe and sound in his bed, none the worse for wear, within less than an hour after police first knocked on his door...

...if he had just gotten the right training, as a child citizen; and if he had then, as an adult one, not fallen for the "police are to be feared" or "police are the mortal enemy" enculturation; and enculturation which Ms Darcey seems to be exhibiting in her piece, here.

Based on the facts as we so-far know them -- and there's the rub, in all this: we don't really yet know them all -- Mr. Scott would appear to have brought his own death upon himself.

While that is, of course, a tragedy; and while I have tremendous sympathy for him and his family; and while I also agree that there just HAS to be some kind of better way for police to handle such situations (or I at least wish there were)...

...Mr. Scott quite likely sealed his own fate, all by himself, with no help from anyone, when he answered the door with a gun in his hand, even if he hadn't subsequently actually pointed it at anyone (or even if the investigation yields that he actually didn't)...

...as Ms Darcey gratefully at least acknowledged when she wrote, here, "Then again, conversely, one might ask: Who answers the door pointing a weapon at anyone, let alone police?"

Before anyone contemplating responding to what I've herein written actually does so, both WESH TV articles about this case should be carefully read...

SEE: http://bit.ly/M83qbJ (first WESH TV article)

SEE: http://bit.ly/MHnIHw (second WESH TV article)

...and shame on Ms Darcey for not providing links to them in her piece, as I've just done, so that we can all read about it from a more responsible and vetted media (her link to WESH TV's front page just wasn't good enough).

Police are not perfect. Some are even downright bad... criminal, even. I don't deny that. And, yes, all police should always be held accountable. But some of the comments, here -- and maybe even Ms Darcey's piece, itself -- border on being, or even are, downright irresponsible. Some of them, in any case, would appear to completely ignore the reality of both the situation, and of the world.

"We come in peace, shoot to kill, shoot to kill, shoot to kill." -Star Trekking, The Firm.

no knock raids are murder,plain and simple! MURDER. it seems like cops can murder americans without repurcussions now

Another perfect example of a police raid gone wrong. If you have not visited the Cato Institute's "raid map" (botched paramilitary raids), you should. This is scary stuff:

http://www.cato.org/raidmap/

Now I'm angry