NC dad fatally shot during struggle for Taser with Harnett Co. deputy, witness says

[ksen]

http://wncn.com/2015/11/15/1-killed-in-harnett-co-officer-involved-shooting/

Carroll says sheriff’s deputies knocked on their door around 3:30 a.m.

Carroll said they were looking for someone that no longer lived there. When deputies asked Livingston if they could search the trailer, Livingston said “not without a search warrant,” according to Carroll.

Livingston then closed the door.

“The cop kicked in the door, got on top of him, started slinging him around beat him…” Carroll said.

Carroll said sheriff’s deputies then started spraying mace on Livingston and using the Taser, according to the roommate.

Witnesses said Livingston was not fighting back and was trying to get the Taser out of the deputy’s hands.

And in case you guys were wondering North Carolina does have a Castle Doctrine.

And before the internet lawyering starts here's what it says about when you are not allowed to use deadly force to protect your home:

When Deadly Force is NOT Lawful

According to the Castle Doctrine deadly force does not apply when:

• the person against whom the defensive force is employed has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the home, motor vehicle, or workplace, and there is no written injunction or order prohibiting contact;

• the person sought to be removed from the home, motor vehicle or workplace is a child or grandchild or is in the lawful custody or under lawful guardianship of the person against whom defensive force is used;

• the person using defensive force is using the home, motor vehicle, or workplace to further any criminal offense involving the use or threat of physical force or violence against anyone;

• the person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer or bail bondsman in lawful performance of his official duties, and the officer or bail bondsman identified himself or herself or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer or bail bondsman;

the person against whom defensive force is used has discontinued efforts to unlawfully and forcefully enter the home, motor vehicle or workplace and has exited those locations.

However, I'd argue that knocking in the guy's door without a warrant does not count as "lawful performance of his official duties" and therefore this Livingston fella was well within his rights to repel the invasion of his home.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

If they didn't have a valid warrant, then they weren't acting in their role as police officers and they just killed a guy while breaking into his home, which makes it felony murder.

 

[Trausti]

If they didn't have a valid warrant, then they weren't acting in their role as police officers and they just killed a guy while breaking into his home, which makes it felony murder.

Eh, the lack of a warrant means violation of his constitutional rights. How you'd characterize the altercation; I don't know. Seems like voluntary manslaughter but an aggressive prosecutor might go to second degree murder. The victim apparently had the taser and the taser kept going off. A bit murky. But the police conduct is probably legally inexcusable.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

If they didn't have a valid warrant, then they weren't acting in their role as police officers and they just killed a guy while breaking into his home, which makes it felony murder.

Eh, the lack of a warrant means violation of his constitutional rights. How you'd characterize the altercation; I don't know. Seems like voluntary manslaughter but an aggressive prosecutor might go to second degree murder. The victim apparently had the taser and the taser kept going off. A bit murky. But the police conduct is probably legally inexcusable.

If they had no legal right to enter his home (which they didn't), then they committed a felony when they kicked down the door and broke into his home. In the course of committing that felony, they killed somebody. That means their motivations for killing him aren't relevant and the sequence of events which led to his death aren't relevant and North Carolina law treats it as the equivalent of first desgree murder.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Went to a person's home at 3:30 AM and didn't have a warrant?!

 

[ZiprHead]

Went to a person's home at 3:30 AM and didn't have a warrant?!

"TRICK OR TREAT!"

 

[JonA]

Are there no times when police have a legal right to enter a house without a warrant?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Are there no times when police have a legal right to enter a house without a warrant?

Yes. However, it seems clear that this was not one of those times.

 

[Derec]

Witnesses said Livingston was not fighting back and was trying to get the Taser out of the deputy’s hands.

How exactly does that work?

 

[laughing dog]

Witnesses said Livingston was not fighting back and was trying to get the Taser out of the deputy’s hands.

How exactly does that work?

Most thinking people would take the term "fighting back" to refer to some offensive measures, while trying to take a Taser out of someone's hands to be a defensive tactic. For example, when one of my neighbor's was attacking my brother with a baseball bat, he tried to grab the bat from the psycho's hands. That is not fighting back. When my other brother grabbed the bat and hit the psycho with it, that was fighting back.

 

[JonA]

Are there no times when police have a legal right to enter a house without a warrant?

Yes. However, it seems clear that this was not one of those times.

Clear to whom?

Without knowing a lot of the details, I think it'd be very hard to discern whether that is the case or not.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Yes. However, it seems clear that this was not one of those times.

Clear to whom?

Without knowing a lot of the details, I think it'd be very hard to discern whether that is the case or not.

What relevant details could be unclear?

They asked permission to enter his house and he refused them. At this point, absent a valid search warrant (which they did not have) it was illegal for them to enter his house. They then illegally broke down his door and entered his house and killed him while performing this crime (which is what you call it when somebody does something illegal).

It seems to be a very straightforward case of felony murder. What do you feel could be missing?

 

[Derec]

Clear to whom?

Without knowing a lot of the details, I think it'd be very hard to discern whether that is the case or not.

What relevant details could be unclear?

They asked permission to enter his house and he refused them. At this point, absent a valid search warrant (which they did not have) it was illegal for them to enter his house. They then illegally broke down his door and entered his house and killed him while performing this crime (which is what you call it when somebody does something illegal).

It seems to be a very straightforward case of felony murder. What do you feel could be missing?

It does seem that way from the information we have.
However, this again shows the folly of fighting police, even when they are in the wrong. "He was right" on the tombstone is not much of a consolation prize. Better to fight it in the court.

 

[zorq]

What relevant details could be unclear?

They asked permission to enter his house and he refused them. At this point, absent a valid search warrant (which they did not have) it was illegal for them to enter his house. They then illegally broke down his door and entered his house and killed him while performing this crime (which is what you call it when somebody does something illegal).

It seems to be a very straightforward case of felony murder. What do you feel could be missing?

It does seem that way from the information we have.
However, this again shows the folly of fighting police, even when they are in the wrong. "He was right" on the tombstone is not much of a consolation prize. Better to fight it in the court.

Should we ignore the fact that criminals impersonating police officers is a thing? Should we ignore the times when police officers are corrupt and acting outside the law? Should we ignore the times when police deliberately commit first degree murder intentionally? (You remember that they are all emotional, fallible, humans, right?)

Sometimes letting someone dressed like a police officer get away with assaulting us unjustly is a mistake.
Sometimes writing, "He was wrong," on a police officer's tomb stone is the preferable alternative to letting our family write, "He was right," on our own.

Taking this in a different direction:
It is my understanding that most modern U.S. conservatives have the strong belief that the only way to handle terrorists is to crush them into the dust using whatever means necessary. What then should we do if the police are terrorizing us?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Trying to take the taser is fighting.

While the intent was probably defensive the cops would have no way of knowing what would happen if he actually got his hand on the taser.

I also can't see felony murder here although I could go for manslaughter.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Trying to take the taser is fighting.

While the intent was probably defensive the cops would have no way of knowing what would happen if he actually got his hand on the taser.

I also can't see felony murder here although I could go for manslaughter.

Why would it matter if he were fighting? From a legal point of view, I mean. I get it from the "We should be passive sheep who should cowtow to any demands from authority figures because we're useless cowards" point of view.

If somebody enters your house illegally and assaults you, is there a legal problem with your fighting back against him? I do not think that there is, so the question of whether he was fighting or not fighting is a moot one. If someone commits msnslaughter during the commission of a felony, North Carolina treats it as felony murder. Illegally breaking into someone's house is a felony and the manslaughter which occurred during this crime falls under that law.

 

[laughing dog]

Trying to take the taser is fighting.

No, it is resisting.

 

[JonA]

At this point, absent a valid search warrant (which they did not have) it was illegal for them to enter his house.

Again that keeps being asserted, but it's not necessarily true.

There are times when the police can enter a home without a warrant. There are times when police do need that warrant.

What we should do is look at the specifics of this case and decide which column it best fits into instead of just crying 'no warrant, no enter'.

And as Derec pointed out, the best place to decide this all is in a courtroom, not in front of the crazy with the gun.

 

[Toni]

Trying to take the taser is fighting.

While the intent was probably defensive the cops would have no way of knowing what would happen if he actually got his hand on the taser.

I also can't see felony murder here although I could go for manslaughter.

So, maybe they should be more careful about pulling out tasers. And entering homes without warrants.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

And what are those times? Are they when the homeowner informs you that he's aware of his legal rights and closes the door, or is some higher level of special circumstances required?