Bang / Guns
See other Bang / Guns Articles
Title: Cops Kill Innocent 86-year-old Navy Vet as He Protected His Wife from Intruders, No Charges
Source:
FromThe Trenches/FTP
URL Source: http://fromthetrenchesworldreport.c ... om-intruders-no-charges/220650
Published: Mar 7, 2018
Author: Matt Agorist
Post Date: 2018-03-08 06:49:48 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 611
Comments: 17
Saratoga, CA — Last year, the widow of an 86-year-old Navy veteran who was gunned down by armed intruders in his own home, filed a lawsuit against her husband’s killers — the Santa Clara County sheriff’s department. Now, the person who murdered this innocent man will not be held accountable as the killing of Eugene Craig has been ruled justified by the Santa Clara County district attorney’s office. Craig was gunned down by police as he attempted to shield his wife from armed intruders who’d just broken into his home. The armed intruders were cops. On Sept. 12, 2016, according to Harue Craig’s attorneys, prior to the shooting, deputies kicked down two doors before opening fire inside the Craigs’ Saratoga home on Titus Avenue. As KTVU reported at the time, attorneys said their client stated that both she and her late husband were “very scared” and did not know why their doors were being kicked down. The elderly couple thought they were victims of a home invasion, so Eugene grabbed his .38 caliber revolver and bravely stood in front of his wife as they listened to the intruders come into their home. When the intruders opened the bedroom door, they saw the elderly vet standing there with the revolver and one deputy opened fire. Although there were multiple deputies in the home, deputy Doug Ulrich was the only one who felt the need to begin shooting. Eugene died on the scene. According to police, they were at the home to conduct a welfare check. Craig’s granddaughter called police the night of the shooting because she hadn’t heard from her grandparents in a week, according to prosecutors. The sheriff’s office said that deputies clearly identified themselves, called the home phone, and tapped on windows repeatedly before entering. In spite of their alleged efforts to identify themselves, the couple still didn’t believe them. After all, they were both entirely innocent and cops coming into their home was a far-fetched idea. Any home invader could simply claim they’re the police to easily gain entry into someone’s home. The tragic irony of this situation is that police claim they were there to protect the couple, noting that they had gotten word that someone inside the home was in distress. Sadly, this is what happens when militarized police are sent into an innocent couple’s home to check on their well-being. Naturally, after they killed the innocent man — while ‘protecting’ him — police immediately attempted to justify their actions and as this ruling by the DA illustrates, it worked. “The law allows Deputy (Douglas) Ulrich to fire his weapon in defense of others (and himself) until Craig no longer posed an imminent threat,” wrote Stacey Capps, a supervisor in the district attorney’s homicide unit. “In short, Deputy Ulrich genuinely believed that Craig presented an imminent threat of death or great bodily injury to others or himself when he discharged his duty weapon.” However, the only ones who created the threat of imminent danger were the police. Craig had harmed no one. As NBC Bay Area reported at the time, the attorney for Craig’s 90-year-old widow, Dennis Luca, a long-time retired San Jose Police officer, turned civil attorney, was originally hired by Craig’s 90-year-old widow after the shooting last fall. “Simply put, they did not follow established policy and procedure that virtually all police departments, sheriff’s office follow regarding the escalation of force,” said Luca. “If you’re there at someone’s house to check on their welfare, why do you kick two doors down at night time when my client is 86 years old, his wife is 90, and they live alone at that house and they have for years?” asked Luca. “They (deputies) didn’t progress through the steps necessary, and that’s why I say they created the deadly force event. Not Mr. Craig, who has a right to be in his house. He hadn’t committed a crime,” said attorney Luca. “He has a right to be safe in his house like all of us do. The police just can’t kick doors, come into the house and start shooting.” Welfare checks, as they are known in the United States, are crap shoots that have the potential to explode into violence at any moment. The Free Thought Project has reported on numerous instances in which police have shown up to ‘protect’ someone who may be suicidal or in distress only to end up hurting or killing them. Sadly, Craig is now one of these statistics and the people who did it to him will not be held responsible for taking an innocent man’s life. Nothing will bring back Harue Craig’s beloved husband. However, her lawsuit will serve as yet another reminder of the effect of police violence on situations that require no force at all. When law enforcement’s only tool is a hammer — everything begins to look like a nail. “It didn’t have to happen. It shouldn’t have happened,” said Luca. “And now I have a 90-year-old woman who is alone, who was married for many years to a war veteran, a pilot, and now she has no one. That’s not a tragedy. That is horrific.”
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Deckard (#0)
People need to learn calling the police to do welfare checks can be deadly.
What people need to learn is how to react and to follow the instructions given by the police at all times, and not necessarily only during welfare checks. If they can’t learn that, or they do no know that if they have the ability to learn....then the peril of danger rests entirely upon their shoulders and no place else Welfare checks are an essential law enforcement function. Clearly these two old people should never have been living alone since the Granddaughter felt compelled to call the police for a welfare check. Old people like this who clearly demonstrated they were incapable of rational thought should not be left by relatives to live alone and fend for themselves. The asshole granddaughter should not be having to call police to check on senile grandparents, she should either have them living with her or hire a caregiver to live with them. There were no “armed intruders” Craig was attempting to shield his wife from. The police loudly announced their presence. This preventable and unnecessary death rests squarely on the shoulders of the stupid and inconsiderate granddaughter.
What a stupid granddaughter! There should have been backup plans with close proximity neighbors or relatives to perform quick checks of her elderly grandparents. But, of course, this article is further evidence of a nation of sheep begging the nanny state for HELP, even when none was needed.
The next time the pigs show up at granny's house she'll shoot first and ask questions later. Same for the neighbors.
Unlike yourself, posting on that thread a pile of tymes, I hadn't read it. Go elsewhere and complain.
Update and new information - try to keep up gramps.
It's the only thing he's good for - that and trolling. Gatlin's Welfare Check Bullshit! Exactly what information was NEW there that was so IMPORTANT and not already known or predicable?
I shall keep that up on a regular continuing basis....on that, you may rest assuredly.
It's anyones fault but the police's fault. But you then say: So is it it the granddaughter's fault or not? Maybe it was her fault for calling the police. At least for calling at the late hour she probably did. If she had waited until morning, perhaps it would have turned out better. Seems to me that after one week of not hearing from them, waiting until morning would not have likely been any harm assuming the worst had happened. Certainly in hindsight.... Apparently this elderly couple was doing fine living on their own, able still able to deal with all of life's challenges except for the one involving a nighttime welfare check by the local police. And just because someone breaking into your home shouts that they are the police doesn't mean they really are the police. But I don't think the "asshole" granddaughter will be making any more welfare requests calls to the police any time soon.
It sure as hell was not the deputies’ fault when they are called to make a welfare check and they knocked on the door while loudly identifying themselves, then went around the house tapping on each window and loudly identifying themselves with no response from inside....for almost an hour. When finally, the deputies believing that surely someone inside must be in distress and unable to respond, kicked in the door and came into contact with Craig who “raised his weapon at the deputies and ignored orders to drop it.” I will continue to lay the blame for this horribly tragic incident on the shoulders of the granddaughter, until evidence or circumstances prove otherwise.
Maybe not the deputies fault per se, assuming they really were there an hour exercised as much caution as is reasonable possible. But I am inclined to apply the standard philosophy in retail business. The customer is always right. And the customers ain't the police. It's the people they serve. So when a customer gets gunned down by the servers who are there to protect them, then in this context, the police failed to serve the customers they are paid to protect. So in that context, yes, the police should have done something -- anything -- differently, and hopefully this police department, if they have any remorse about the loss of innocent life, will think on those lines and come up with alternate ideas on what they could have done.
Maybe not the deputies fault per se ... All of this brings me back to my first question, which was: I say that when “Craig the customer” is pointing a gun at a “deputy the server” who is there to check on his “welfare”....then in this context it was the “Craig the customer” who denied service of the “deputy who protects” when he pointed a gun at that deputy and refused to drop the gun when told to do so. You seem to have given this situation deep thought. Therefore, please tell me exactly what you would have done had you been the deputy answering this call. And specifically what you would have done with Craig pointed the gun at you and refusing to drop it? Plese tell me ... After reading your responses to this tragic accident, your complete avoidance to place blame anywhere and only give some vague innuendos with allusive or oblique remarks that only hint but really state noting....I cannot help but believe your disdain for law enforcement has once again raised its ugly head. I can see it no other way. Please forgive me if I came to this wrong conclusion. I thank you for your thoughtful post ...
Well, you're welcome. I guess. I stand by my premise that any time an innocent person is harmed by police, it represents a failure of the system, even if it's not the legal or technical fault of any individual officer. It's no different than how it's a failure any time an innocent person is wrongly convicted by the justice system. Even some who have been convicted of capital crimes and been executed by the state have been later exonerated. Each and every one of those cases is a failure of the system. So this is no different. Yes, the customer in this case was the innocent home owner who's life ended by a shot from a public servant. It *IS* a failure. As for my "distain" for law enforcement, if you have that opinion because I usually side against police on reports posted here by Deckard, then I would say that's little different from how most criminal trials end with convictions, and not acquittals, and for the same reasons, which I don't think I need to expand on. And I see no more virtue in someone who always sides with police than someone who always convicts police. And just because you think the police did right does not mean you are not armchair quarterbacking the event. To the contrary, casting any opinion means you are. just like me and everyone else here. You weren't there and I wasn't there either. You and I just yak on a forum.
I believe we are finished here and I will leave a final response to you, should you have one ...
why do you kick two doors down at night time
#2. To: Pinguinite, Deckard, All (#1)
People need to learn calling the police to do welfare checks can be deadly.
Especially as in the case here, when two senile old people are living alone without the abiity to think clearly and react logically. On Sept. 12, 2016, according to Harue Craig’s attorneys, prior to the shooting, deputies kicked down two doors before opening fire inside the Craigs’ Saratoga home on Titus Avenue.
The police forced the doors open for a “welfare check” No court order is required for the police to conduct a welfare check. Essentially, as long as they have reasonable grounds to believe that an inhabitant in a residence in endangered, they can legally enter the premises. They typically knock on the door and await a response before announcing their law enforcement affiliation. If they still receive no response, they may enter the property. This is particularly useful when someone inside the house is unconscious or otherwise unable to respond. The ability to enter the property without permission means t
The relatives of people who do not know how to react when police officers knock at the front door and announce their presence should not left living alone without proper supervision. The elderly couple thought they were victims of a home invasion, so Eugene grabbed his .38 caliber revolver and bravely stood in front of his wife as they listened to the intruders come into their home.
He “bravely stood?” Bullshit! His “senile reaction” grab the gun out of the drawer after the police had announced their presence was without the benefit of clear thought and logical reaction. The police clearly announced who they were. He and his wife did not have the mental capacity to understand that. Sad.
#3. To: Pinguinite (#1)
According to police, they were at the home to conduct a welfare check. Craig’s granddaughter called police the night of the shooting because she hadn’t heard from her grandparents in a week, according to prosecutors.
#4. To: Gatlin (#2)
#5. To: Deckard. A K A Stone (#0)
Just how MANY times are you going to post this same article? Title: Cops Gun Down Innocent 86-year-old Navy Vet as He Protected His Wife from Intruders
Just when is enough....going to be too much for you?
Source: Free Thought Project
URL Source: http://thefreethoughtproject.com/in ... intruders/#ak8i2bRcbBGQk0C4.99
Published: Apr 18, 2017
Author: Matt Agorist
Post Date: 2017-04-18 10:22:33 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 230
Comments: 7
#6. To: Gatlin, Deckard (#5)
Title: Cops Gun Down Innocent 86-year-old Navy Vet as He Protected His Wife from Intruders
#7. To: Gatlin (#5)
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.
#8. To: buckeroo (#6)
Go elsewhere and complain.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.
#9. To: Deckard, buckeroo (#0)
#10. To: Deckard (#7)
Update and new information - try to keep up gramps.
#11. To: Deckard (#8)
It's the only thing he's good for - that and trolling.
Nah, the best thing I do is kick your ass with fact-checking.
#12. To: Gatlin (#2)
What people need to learn is how to react and to follow the instructions given by the police at all times, and not necessarily only during welfare checks.
If they can’t learn that, or they do no know that if they have the ability to learn....then the peril of danger rests entirely upon their shoulders and no place else
The asshole granddaughter should not be having to call police to check on senile grandparents,
#13. To: Pinguinite, Deckard (#12)
It's anyones fault but the police's fault.
Absolutely, without question....according to all reports I have read. And just because someone breaking into your home shouts that they are the police doesn't mean they really are the police.
That is correct. But in this case, for almost an hour the deputies were knocking on the door, tapping on all windows and loudly identifying themselves. If it were a break in, then a rational person capable of thinking sensibly would have called 9-1-1 to report an attempted break in, or maybe questioned if it were the police knocking at their door and tapping on all of their windows. But I don't think the "asshole" granddaughter will be making any more welfare requests calls to the police any time soon.
That’s for damned sure and it is as I already said, she shouldn’t have left them to fend for themselves in the first place with their terrible mental state...if they stand around almost an hour “expecting a break in by deputies loudly identifying themselves” and never calling 9-1-1. Apparently this elderly couple was doing fine living on their own, able still able to deal with all of life's challenges except for the one involving a nighttime welfare check by the local police.
Do you honestly and sincerely believe “this elderly couple was doing fine living on their own” if they were so ncapable of realizing what was going on for almost an hour with deputies trying to get their attention and they did not call 9-1-1? This “exception” nightmare must prove there were totally incapable of “handling life’s challenges.” They never should have been left alone. They needed to have a fulltime caregiver in their home, be moved to an assisted living facility or moved into the granddaughter’s home where she would still have need a caregiver present when the granddaughter was not home. It's anyones fault but the police's fault.
Do you think this was the deputies fault and if so...then why, and how should they have handled it any differently?
#14. To: Gatlin (#13)
Do you think this was the deputies fault and if so...then why, and how should they have handled it any differently?
#15. To: Pinguinite (#14)
(Edited)
Do you think this was the deputies fault and if so...then why, and how should they have handled it any differently?
Excuse me, I don’t understand what you are saying here. Eugene Craig, an 86-year old man was shot and killed by a Santa Clara County Deputy Sheriff. Fault or blame must be placed on someone for that shooting and killing. You stating that it wasn’t the deputy’s fault “per se” makes no sense to me....I’m sorry. As you surely know, the definition of “per se” means: “Intrinsically of, or relating to, the essential nature of a thing.” So, please....let us not “dance around” with any of this “per se” stuff, as if to avoid directly placing blame. Someone had to be at fault. It had to be either Craig or the deputy. I asked you a very simple question. I will repeat it: “Do you think this was the deputy’s fault.” I believe that calls for a “yes” or “no” answer with qualifying remarks permitted, if so necessary. assuming they really were there an hour ...
I think that is hardly an “assumption.” It was reported there were there “for almost an hour.” It is my opinion that any reporter worth his salt and even one on the job for the first day would have checked to see what time the 911 call by the granddaughter was made, the time the deputies were dispatched to Craig’s home and correlated that with the rime of the reported shooting. You must think that also....or at least you should. So, I believe we can take any “assuming” on the amount of time they were there out of consideration. ... exercised as much caution as is reasonable possible.
If the deputies were there for “almost and hour” as that can accurately validated....how much more “caution” could they have used before assuming someone in the house was in dire need of help. Would their waiting for another hour, perhaps two or even longer....shown the deputies were exercising “as much caution as you consider reasonable possible?” . But I am inclined to apply the standard philosophy in retail business.
I have a feeling what you are about to be inclined to do is place the blame for this shooting solely at the feet of the deputy. Let us see ... The customer is always right.
Yep, I thought so....well, I actually knew where you were going based on the sentiments towards law enforcement officers you expressed in so many of your previous posts. And the customers ain't the police.
So if the customer is always right, as you have emphatically stated and the customer in this case being Craig....then the deputy was demonstrably wrong in shooting Craig. Do you think this was the deputies fault ...
And I still do not have an answer to that....at least anywhere that I can find. It's the people they serve.
Of course. So when a customer gets gunned down by the servers who are there to protect them, then in this context, the police failed to serve the customers they are paid to protect.
I see this a different way, as you no doubt expect. So in that context, yes, the police should have done something -- anything – differently ...
Of course it is so very easy for someone who wasn’t there to do the typical “Monday morning quarterbacking.” ... and hopefully this police department, if they have any remorse about the loss of innocent life, will think on those lines and come up with alternate ideas on what they could have done.
I am sure it is standard procedure for all law enforcement departments to review all shooting incidents thoroughly and evaluate their protocols for upgrading when they find anything thatcan be done better.
#16. To: Gatlin (#15)
I cannot help but believe your disdain for law enforcement has once again raised its ugly head. I can see it no other way. Please forgive me if I came to this wrong conclusion.
I thank you for your thoughtful post ...
#17. To: Pinguinite (#16)
I stand by my premise that any time an innocent person is harmed by police, it represents a failure of the system, even if it's not the legal or technical fault of any individual officer.
Without objection, I will take this response to mean that the deputy was not at fault in the shooting....as an answer to my question: Do you think this was the deputies fault and if so...then why, and how should they have handled it any differently?
However I cannot say it was a system failure. I believe in this case it was an individual responsibility failure....namely that of the granddaughter.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]