Felony stop leaves family traumatized

[Zak Smith]

The LE-sympathetic point-of-view expressed, here by KornDog:

t seems like everyone here (or at least at the first part of the thread) want's to condemn the police. All at the same time while not one of us were there, and none of the officers involved knew the full story (like we do know) until after the fact... Monday Morning Quarterbacking at it's finest.

... really disturbs me, for the following reason: We all start out with basic rights - the right to our person, our life, property, which entails the right to not be physically attacked, harassed, physical freedom, and the right to not have out property (e.g. our dog) destroyed. Those rights stay intact until we infringe upon those same rights of another, at which point some of ours become forfeit.

For example, you may not inflict violence upon my person in the normal state of affairs; yet once I initiate force against you, my right to bodily safety is forfeit (generally in proportion to the threat I pose).

Since this family didn't infringe on the rights of anybody else, they did not forfeit any rights, and thus the LEOs as a whole infringed on the family's rights.

There are well-defined qualitative levels of suspicion for LEOs (e.g.: reasonable suspicion, probably cause, search warrants) so that the level of infringement on the freedom of the citizen is proportional to the "quality" of information indicating they have previously committed a crime (ie, infringed on someone else and thus deserving).

In this case, the mechanisms in place as safeguards broke down, and their rights were infringed wrongly. Thus all the LEOs involved are culpable. The family bears no guilt, and certainly the dog cannot bear any.

-z

 

[Randy63]

This story makes me irate. I've never really had a high opinion of most police. Over the years this sentiment has been reenforced time and time again.

These guys are public servants? BULL**IT.

Ego Tripping Nazis.

K22

 

[Blackhawk]

:banghead:

I don't know why I bother. Some of you are just too emotional to be objective.

Essential chain of events and responsible party:

• Wallet left on roof -- Smoaks
• Wallet reported to police -- 911 caller
• Felony report -- Apparently a THP or police "dispatcher"
• Dogs left with way of exiting car -- 1 or more of the Smoaks
• Dog shot -- CPD officer

The third one caused the die to be cast for the type of stop, and that's where the major screwup happened.

To assume that the THP would have shot any of the Smoaks if they bumped the doors shut with their butts but with their hands straight up in the air is asinine.

We don't know what the 911 caller said, if anything, to cause the dispatcher to categorize it as a felony, nor do we know the experience or training of the dispatcher. Nor can we conclude that the overzealous felony call was "wrong" with the information available.

Obviously, none of this would have happened if the wallet hadn't been inadvertently and carelessly left on the roof.

Just as obviously, the SNAFU would not have turned into being FUBAR if the dog hadn't gotten out.

You can each make of that what you want, but for some reason Jesse Ventura's line comes to mind: "The truth? You can't handle the truth!"

 

[2nd Amendment]

The second negligent actions that led to escalation of the SNAFU was failing to close the car door(s) upon exiting the car knowing the dogs were within and unrestrained.

I'm sorry but that is possibly the dumbest thing I have ever heard. That's not hyperbole, either. It's just so bizarre as to be almost unreal. Joe Schmoe leaves a wallet on his roof and all the ensuing Keystone Kops stupidity becomes his fault, even failing to close a door with armed idiots screaming the usual patented and trademarked obscenities at him.

This was a screw-up of monolithic proportions. Nobody is seeing the "cop side" because this is one of those situations where the only other side can be "Duh, ah didn' know whut was go'n on..."



No, it is insufficient to call the statement dumb. let me specify WHY it is too dumb for rational conversation:

Joe Schmoe finds himself pulled over in an unfamilar area by a large group of unfamilar cops when he knows he has done nothing wrong. This isn't a no idea what you've done wrong thing because that indicates you've at least done something. He's ordered from his car without any idea of what is going on or what is to come. But he's not the only person in the car. Why should he be expected to close the door? is he supposed to expect being cuffed, stuffed and detained at this point? Why? keep in mind who the victim is here.

No logical reason to expect detainement or feel a need to close a car door.

Second individual in car is ordered out. At that point the person is probably either physically removed or at least escorted from the vehicle. There's still no idea why, for either victim. Would you close that door? Would you even think of it at that point? Why should you or we expect someone in a situation like this to BE thinking of it? And considering it's an almost certainty there was a cop AT the door why did HE not close it?

Especially after being told dogs were in the car later?

Lastly, have EVER forgotten your wallet, keys, ID, money anywhere for any reason? Then don't call it negligence. negligence is a pattern or attitude of general incompetence.

This was a mistake. An accident. It happens. We have ALL done it. And not one of us deserves this sort of bumbling, ham-handed JBT routine. There is no defense.

edited thrice for additional thoughts, even though it didn't show the first time

 

[Cal4D4]

With substantial respect to the hazards of law enforcement, my final comments....

How can you work so hard to excuse the unexcusable?

 

[riverdog]

Blackhawk,
I agree with some of what you said, but not all.
1) I agree that the major mistake was at the 911 caller/felony report interface. Whatever information was reported or assumed, it was obviously wrong. Major error IMO.
2) I disagree on closing the door. Having the presence of mind to shut the car door when LE is using a bull horn to control your every movement and action is expecting too much.

Maybe I'm off base, but I find the dog's death to be a secondary issue. The primary issue is conducting a felony stop without all or any of the facts. Neither the THP or City LEOs on scene knew what had transpired or who they were dealing with. It took them an hour just to figure out they'd stopped and detained the victim of this non-felony. They didn't know the identity of the alledged perps and they didn't know the identity of the victims or the nature of the crime. Does that make the stop inappropriate? I think so.

LE was grossly uninformed/misinformed and they need to figure out which.

 

[Gmac]

Typical JBT attitude = " I am in charge and anyone who doesn't do exactly as I say will be shot and then shot again because I am GOD!" What ever happened to asessing the situation and responding in a professional manner?

 

[Blackhawk]

I agree with your whole last post, riverdog.

The death of the dog is what caused this SNAFU to become irreversible. Without that happening, the Smoaks could be placated, wined, dined, and otherwise made to "feel" better.

2) I disagree on closing the door. Having the presence of mind to shut the car door when LE is using a bull horn to control your every movement and action is expecting too much.

You're free to disagree, but take a look at it from the LEOs perspective. They were ordered to make a felony stop of this vehicle without any reason why. Al Qaida? Abduction? Escapees? They simply had no idea.

How about an abductee tosses a wallet out as a ploy to alert police of a crime in progress? Plausible?

How about a trained attack dog lurking ready to go on a secret voice command when an open door is available? Possible?

There are ANY number of scenarios that the LEOs could be facing, but the bottom line is that they didn't know what was going on any more than the Smoaks did.

Which brings me to the dark horse. The second Smoaks car. Since I would have, it seems reasonable for the elder Smoaks to come up to the THP OIC and ask "What's the trouble officer? That's my family and we're on vacation returning to ________ ."

The Smoaks were the only ones who knew the dogs were in the car. LEOs do not pay attention to requests from detainees unless and until the ENTIRE situation is under their control. Screaming for them to close the car door isn't going to do anything but agitate the LEOs and the dog.

I just don't think it was unreasonable for the Smoaks to close the car doors when they had the opportunity. That's my opinion, and everybody else is entitled to theirs.

 

[Blackhawk]

No problem, 2nd Amendment. I consider the source....

 

[Zak Smith]

Trained attack dog on secret voice commands? Sure... hey, it could have been dogs with bees in their mouth so when they bark they shoot bees.... on secret voice command.

Which brings me to the dark horse. The second Smoaks car. Since I would have, it seems reasonable for the elder Smoaks to come up to the THP OIC and ask "What's the trouble officer? That's my family and we're on vacation returning to ________ ."

I just don't think it was unreasonable for the Smoaks to close the car doors when they had the opportunity. That's my opinion, and everybody else is entitled to theirs.

Why do you go to so much trouble to attempt to put responsibility back on the completely innocent citizens?

The LEOs initiated and escalated the situation.

-z

 

[Blackhawk]

:banghead:

I don't Zak. The responsibility lies entirely on the LEOs.

The grievous injury was the death of the dog. After the dog came out of the car, there wasn't going to be any other outcome.

The only ones with the opportunity to protect the dog were the Smoaks.

There's a lot of difference between opportunity to mitigate probable harm and responsibility for causing it.

I'm sorry for the Smoaks, and I'm sorry for the CPD and THP. But under the hands all on the scene were dealt as a result of the initiating SNAFU, things went predictably sour.

 

[2nd Amendment]

No problem, 2nd Amendment. I consider the source....

Really? I don't believe I've ever seen that particular creative method of avoiding the point before. Thx for showing me something entirely new and inventive...

 

[Zak Smith]

Blackhawk,

I must have read too much into your comments. I apologize.

under the hands all on the scene were dealt as a result of the initiating SNAFU, things went predictably sour.

Agree.
-z

 

[Matthew Courtney]

Doing something the LEO in charge of the felony stop did not order you to do is likely to get you killed. The Smoaks should not have closed the doors.

The LEO supervisor who ordered the felony stop is the responsible party. The LEO's at the scene likely had a good faith belief that they were dealing with a potentially violent felon.

Grinning or smiling under stress are among the range of natural, reasonable human responses. So doing does not indicate that one who does is inclined toward or takes particular pleasure in the situation. Effectively repressing one's emotions under stress is often the best way to survive.

The procedures for ordering felony stops in that jurisdiction need to be reviewed, as does the training of the supervisory personnel empowered to order such stops.

 

[Baba Louie]

WOW!

Greeeeaaaattt Thread.

This side and that side.

Back and forth.

During a felony stop when the cops have you surrounded, lit up and HAVE THEIR GUNS DRAWN, ordering you to throw out keys, keep hands visible, open door and exit with arms outstretched, etc., who's gonna have the presence of mind to "Close the door"?

I'm probably gonna be wondering, "What the heck" while complying TO THE FULLEST EXTENT I CAN. What dog?, What family? Why do these guys have their guns pointing at me> Everything else is in last place.

Ever had cops all around you pointing their arms at you, READY and WAITING for some serious caca to occur? (I personally haven't thank you very much)

Did the cops on scene know about a misplaced/lost loose wallet? Probably not. They knew what the dispatcher told them. They then did what they had to do (or were trained to do) and (remember I wasn't there) probably did it in a professional manner.

Shooting the dog? Bummer and all sorts of bad words which cannot be repeated here.

It sounds like some here would have the cops turn on their clairvoyent helmets and know totally what the situation was.

Once the po-po are called in, believe me, they TAKE CHARGE OF THE SITUATION. THAT'S WHY THEY WE HIRE, TRAIN THEM AND SEND THEM OUT ON THE STREET. (sorry for shouting) Cause you and I are sitting here at home or work doing our little jobs, very rarely dealing with the criminal element on a daily basis. Ususally we only hear about the events like this one where some form of life is lost. Sometimes the good guys win, sometimes...not. Sometimes, its a little more complex. Like life.
I thank god they're there. Imagine a life here without them (OK Fred, it's your turn to go on patrol tonight. Right after Ethel gets back in off her shift)

Second guessing and raging out doing the monday morning QB'ing... it's what we do here.

Are some people in uniform not qualified? Maybe. Maybe not.

Did bad stuff happen here? Without a doubt. Will the Smoaks get their day in court? Probably.

Lets all wait and see how this plays out.

If you're LEO (or retired/former etc), please join in... better yet, wait for a cooling off period, when both sides of the "TRUTH" come out (if ever...truth being a perception).

It'll be real interesting to see what happens. And can we believe the press totally anyway?

This isn't a Ruby Ridge or Waco, tho some here would think so.

No human lost their life. (again, I thank goodness)

Yeah, the Smoaks had a New Year they'll never forget. So did THP and the Cookville boys in blue.

Lets all learn something (tho what I'm not sure) from this.

At least how to remain civil when dealing with others on "The Higher Road".

Adios

 

[F=ma]

Stupid Question:

If there were dogs visable/known in the vehicle, wouldn't it be prudent to confine/contain them in the car ASAP?

There's three likely directions the dog will go....towards the people/police, towards the highway (causing vehicle #2 to swerve and crash, x fatals?), or they could take off for the woods.

I would think that a dog would be treated as an immediate threat and, with that many personel on scene, confined prior to physically handling its master. A poor job of controlling the scene, in my uneducated opinion.

 

[Mustang]

the officer took the only action he could to protect himself and gain control of the situation.

Sure it was the only course of action. After you screw up by not preventing something in the first place, usually the only course of action left is to do something stupid. That's what happened here.

Thanks, Chief for that in-depth investigation.

Has there ever been high profile foul up where some grunt didn't lie to his CO about what happened?

I believe the Smoaks when they said Johnny Law here was pleased with his handiwork. "No Chief, honest, I didn't grin about it."

 

[GinSlinger]

Clearing up my earlier error...

Several pages ago I posted that i wondered if this was a case of DWB based on the severe over-reaction of the officers and some of the syntax in the Smoat's statements. I viewed an interview with the Smoat family at work this morning. They are anglo, white, whatever. I want to clarify that and to apologize for jumping to conclusions. However, maybe DWB is no longer going to be "special". Perhaps, in this post 9/11 time, we are all susiptible to this kind of behavior.

In Humbleness,
GinSlinger

 

[Blackhawk]

I don't believe I've ever seen that particular creative method of avoiding the point before. Thx for showing me something entirely new and inventive...

My pleasure, 2nd Amendment.

Did you have a point?

I thought you were just astounded at the dumbest thing you had ever read.

 

[cratz2]

Well, a LEO's gotta do what a LEO's gotta do and I think this officers decision is going to cost the state of Tennesee a bundle. Not to mention the fact that many people have been killed over shooting another man's dog.

 

[2nd Amendment]

I am, really! I'm still gasping from the shock.

Seriously, I went on to explain why it seems so dumb as opposed to just saying it was. I expected you to tell me why I'm just too dumb to get it.

 

[Blackhawk]

I expected you to tell me why I'm just too dumb to get it.

I wouldn't do something like that -- it wouldn't be nice!

(Besides the forum rules don't allow it....)

 

[2nd Amendment]

Sure they do, you just have to be creative, dangit!

 

[Sniper9]

I had to register here just to reply to some of the professional monday morning quarterbacks here who have obviously never conducted a felony stop, pulled over a car, strapped on a vest, pinned on a badge, cleared a car, dispatched a call, answered a 911 call, shot a weapon in self defense, etc, etc..continue typing away b/c you don't have a clue. You've made that clear in your replies. I wish the streets were as simple as some of you make them sound. The real world is far from perfect. Very far from perfect. Anyone who's every been on the job for any amount of time can easily see how this could have occurred anywhere given the facts known. The thing most people on this board seem to neglect is that YOU DON'T KNOW ALL THE FACTS, and you obviously don't understand why police officers do some of the things they do, and why they don't always do things the way you would. Perhaps some of you should contact your local PDs and request to do a ride along? Then perhaps you would have just a little bit of knowledge to base your opinions on.

If you can't tell I'm just a cop. I didn't get picked on in high school, I was in the military, I did go to college & I could be making a lot more $$$ doing a lot less. I do it b/c it's who I am... and I thank God there are thousands of men and women just like me out there on the streets right now. To my brothers and sisters on this board, stay safe. I'm still trying to understand how this can be called the "highroad"

 

[Zak Smith]

Sniper9, Welcome.

I'm still trying to understand how this can be called the "highroad"

It's because we try to discuss and debate topics civilly using facts, reason, and principled arguments, and try to avoid ad hominem attacks and other logical fallacies.

regards
Zak