A paragraph down from the affidavit
Problem is that his family say one thing, the police say another.
Pro-Police
What was the probation arrest for? Certainly the police seemed to expect a potentially armed response from the position they took up before approaching the house. That coupled with the exist of a probation violation potentially suggest a history of firearm violence.
There are times in case law when a verbal announcement is not required, that includes such a time as officers believe that they have been identified as law enforcement personnel. If the police felt they'd been seen and identified as they parked or approached the house then they legal precedents for muting warnings.
@
niky says the officer was "prepared to go gung-ho", I think that's a presumption based on a perception of subsequent events. The pro-police argument makes it reasonable to think that they had reasons to fear an armed response at the property.
He lives in a trailer park on parole, it's fair to assume that the police may not have expected his children to be at the trailer with him, including his 18-year-old son.
As the door opened they believed they saw an adult-sized male holding a firearm and they were confronted with an officer's worst fear; potential death. The officer fired immediately in self-defence.
Pro-Victim
As I've already pointed out, the Deadly Force protection for civilians (and extended to LAOs in Tennesse.vs.Garner) has a flaw; it depends on absolutely perfect judgement. In a one-on-one case it could be seen to offer zero-public-protection.
In this case the witnesses for the victim claim that he wasn't holding a firearm but a Wii remote, no verbal warning was given and no attempt at physical arrest was made.
The father lives in a trailer park on parole, it's fair to assume that the police may not have expected his children to be at the trailer with him. They arrived in a gung-ho state of mind (as @
niky observes) ready for a fight. Maybe they already had history with the perp and were planning to settle scores.
If this account is true then the police officer is guilty, in any right-thinking society, of murder.
Actually
The victim's family have lost him forever, that's awful and not going to change. Regardless of anyone's crimes I can never bring myself to believe that a person's death in retribution changes anything.
As part of their natural grief the family want the worst possible things to happen to the LAOs involved in the incident. It's also natural that if guilt exists they'll want to deny it. There's also a major fiscal consideration. I'm not making any presumptions about the family, I consider those things to be true in situations like this regardless of the creed or class of the families involved.
So far, from the family, we've only heard from their lawyers who are treading the 'party line' and not offering a version of events any different from that which they present to the court. We all know what's in it for the lawyers, and they won't present a balanced view even when the cheque's cashed.
As for the police; they're naturally defending themselves by saying they were following procedure. Maybe they did? Maybe the officer genuinely believe that they were being presented with a raising firing-arm holding a firearm, a taser-like device, a can of gas, all potentially deadly weapons. From what they say they approached the house with aforeknowledge that they were going to detain a convicted criminal who had violated his parole terms. We don't know what for, if that parole was for a serious firearms offence then it may change the colour of the case somewhat.
Genuinely we don't really know, I'm now sure we've really seen any unbiased or unedited account of events and nor are we likely to until the case is judged.
EDIT: In a couple of other places I've found a quote from a witness on the trailer park who said "
This is tragic. She came out of this house. She put her head in her hands and she was sobbing...
Supposedly, he opened the door with a BB gun”.
Cole Law, attorney at law, is unconvinced. He maintains Wii remote.
Sadly I wonder if we'll ever know and if this case will ever leave everyone feeling that justice was done.
EDIT EDIT: The case highlights a particular problem that the police face; when a case is sub-judice the police can't make comment as they're normally the primary witness for the 'people'. Sadly in the US and the UK lawyers for the defence use the pre-hearing period to make hay in public - unless orchestrated publicity campaigns are undertaken it's unlikely the judge would find for contempt as long as no statements are given immediately-before-or-during the main hearings.
