When Officer Friendly, Isn’t Update
I’m a big fan of LEOs. Our local Sheriff’s Deputies are first rate- polite, professional, and well trained. I run into them, and the Sheriff, at our local Sportsman’s Club’s rifle and pistol ranges all the time. Unfortunatly this professionalism isn’t the case everywhere. Couple that with no-knock, Red Flag type laws, and trouble is bound to occur. Like this:
Trial set for case involving war veteran who was shot by 2 cops inside his own home
By: SCOTT SHINDLEDECKER
A trial date has been scheduled in the case of a Kalispell war veteran who sued after he was shot by two Kalispell Police Department officers inside his home more than four years ago.
Ryan Pengelly, 35, filed a lawsuit in January 2019 against the city of Kalispell and Flathead County, along with Kalispell Police Officers Chad Zimmerman and Eric Brinton, and Sheriff’s Deputies Geno Cook and Kipp Tkachyk.
Court documents dated March 19 indicate U.S. District Court Judge Dana Christensen ruled some parts of the case could be determined through summary judgments, but a jury would decide other parts of the suit.
Some parts of the suit were dismissed, including claims made against Flathead County, Cook and Tkachyk. Both officers investigated the shooting.
Pengelly is seeking damages to compensate him for lost wages, emotional distress and hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical bills. He argues the officer violated his constitutional rights by entering a home without a warrant and using excessive force.
In the incident that started the proceedings, Pengelly was shot four times by Zimmerman and Brinton during an armed confrontation Jan. 12, 2016, as they attempted to take his mother, Bonnie, into custody at their residence on Looking Glass Avenue.
The lawsuit alleges both Kalispell police officers entered the home without an arrest warrant for Pengelly’s mother, who had well-documented mental-health issues.
According to court documents, Brinton, who had been in law enforcement less than two years, received information that Bonnie was threatening to do harm to herself or her “daughter-in-law.” When he spoke to Bonnie’s supervisor at work, she said the threat wasn’t imminent, but she “just wanted the police to look into it.”
According to the complaint, one of Bonnie’s co-workers told Brinton her son owned military-grade weapons. It also claims Brinton told Zimmerman he intended to arrest Pengelly’s mother, despite Zimmerman allegedly saying “99.9 percent of the time” these reports are “just someone running their mouth.”
Additionally, the lawsuit alleges when Zimmerman and Brinton arrived at Pengelly’s residence and spoke with his mother, they didn’t identify themselves as police officers, why they were there and didn’t turn on their audio recorders.
Court filings also assert that after they completed their investigation, Tkachyk and Cook didn’t recommend filing charges against Pengelly because he didn’t know Zimmerman and Brinton were police officers.
But Deputy County Attorney Stacey Boman disagreed and charges were filed against Pengelly for felony assault on a peace officer. The charges were ultimately dismissed with prejudice upon Boman’s own motion.
The entire incident could have been avoided with a phone call. Read the rest of the article here: American Military News
Update
penguinman000 has provided me with Case Documentation on the incident. Case number 9:19-cv-00010-DLC for the US District Court, district of Montana Missoula Division. Seems the reporter missed a few items.
1) Bonnie Pengelly was mentally ill, and had made recent death threats and expressed an intention to commit sucicide.
2) Both Officers were veterans- Brinton was hired in 2014, Zimmerman has been in law enforcement since 1995.
3) Officers were conducting welfare check on Pengelly. A warrent was not required.
4) Tellingly, both officers were in uniform at the time.
5) Audio and video were not in use as the Officers were not investigating a crime.
6) Pengelly denied making any threats, and retreated into the house.
7) Penegelly resisted as she was being handcuffed, and managed to free her hand with the handcuff. This presented a danger to the Officers.
8) She was placed on the ground by forcing her to lose balance, not a body slam.
9) While she was being handcuffed, James Malley presented himself, and was told to not become involved. He backed away.
10) Ryan Penegelly was in his bedroom when he heard the disturbance. He grabbed his AR-15.
11) He entered the room armed an pointed the rifle at the Officers, and was shot.
Not quite the story presented by Scott Shindledecker, which is penguinman000’s point. .pdf format is not friendly with WordPress, and the files are quite large. I’ll be happy to email a transcript if anyone wants one.
Thanks, pen. Appreciate the effort to get the real story out.
Category: "Teh Stoopid", Legal, Police
“The worst part of having a mental illness is people expect you to behave as if you don’t.”
~ Arthur Fleck (AKA Joker)
Misleading title much? How about “Armed man confronts police officers arresting his mother, gets shot”?
I know nothing about this case or that state’s laws. However that article is absolutely 100% lazy journalism/anti-cop hating BS.
You do understand what “dismissed with prejudice” means, right?
Yes I do.
I also understand much of what is written in that article is preceded by the word allege.
That article communicates a bunch of allegations from one side with no attempt at a balanced presentation. Just starts from the position that “cops are bad”.
OK. Did they have enough info to get a warrant? Did they get a warrant? Did they skip that step because they knew they didn’t have justification for a warrant?
Know enough LEO’s to have heard many times, “If you have time to get a warrant, get a warrant. If you don’t, be prepared to explain to multiple courts why you didn’t. And it better be a very, very good explanation.” In other words, always get a warrant except in the most extreme circumstances.
Yes, Red Flag laws have changed that somewhat. Not completely.
OWB-I didn’t see anything in that article indicating there were red flag laws at play. As far as I’m aware that attempt at shredding the Constitution a little bit more got voted down. Perhaps I missed something?
The article speaks specifically to an arrest warrant, not a search warrant. Search warrants are typically what is used to enter homes. Pointing out they didn’t have an arrest warrant vice a search warrant (or even saying they didn’t have a warrant) sticks out as particularly odd.
Makes by BS meter start twitching.
The suit is, in part, for entering the home without a warrant. That is almost always a no-no. Doesn’t matter the type they didn’t have.
Did not identify themselves as LEO. That is a major mistake. Kinda hard to explain an ad-hoc undercover on a welfare check.
Did not turn on their recording devices, failed to identify themselves, and entered the home without a warrant.
They should consider themselves lucky to be alive, also not to be facing charges.
That pooch was well and truly screwed.
“Search warrants are typically what is used”
I refer you to your own words–“I know nothing about this case or that state’s laws”
The article also says—.” He argues the officer violated his constitutional rights by entering a home without a warrant”
Probably without an arrest *or* a search warrant. Otherwise the judge would have also ruled out that part of the suit.
“The lawsuit alleges both Kalispell police officers entered the home without an arrest warrant for Pengelly’s mother”.
“Additionally, the lawsuit alleges when Zimmerman and Brinton arrived at Pengelly’s residence and spoke with his mother, they didn’t identify themselves as police officers”.
“Court filings also assert that after they completed their investigation, Tkachyk and Cook didn’t recommend filing charges against Pengelly because he didn’t know Zimmerman and Brinton were police officers”.
That tells me that Pengelly did not confront police officers, he confronted two men that had no business in his home.
I am by no means anti-cop. But I am anti untrained, badge-heavy asshole.
I assume they were in uniform.
They will probably argue that unless they were in plain clothes.
Either way, this kid got jacked up.
SFC D-There are several issues I have with the article. I’ll just address the quotes you used.
“The lawsuit alleges both Kalispell police officers entered the home without an arrest warrant for Pengelly’s mother”.-As a general rule of thumb an officer cannot enter a home with an arrest warrant. That typically takes a search warrant not an arrest warrant. This specific topic is beat into the head of recruits during the academy. You could literally say police entered a home without an arrest warrant thousands of times a year in the US. Typically a search warrant is used to enter houses, not arrest warrants.
“Additionally, the lawsuit alleges when Zimmerman and Brinton arrived at Pengelly’s residence and spoke with his mother, they didn’t identify themselves as police officers”.-It appears the person claiming the police didn’t identify themselves as officers also has a “well documented” history of mental illness. While we don’t know the specifics of the woman’s mental illness, it’s entirely possible the police ID themselves (badges displayed, typical opening statement “I’m officer Jones with the ___PD) and she simply freaked out.
Lots more I could comment on in that article. Lots of stuff that makes me lean toward some “journalist” grabbing headlines/views with no concern for the truth.
Then the officers are confronted by a man with a long gun. Considering the climate LEOs live/work in it’s completely reasonable for those cops to have been in fear for their lives.
And if I was the son and heard my mom screaming for help I may very well have reacted the same. It seems to be the son being shot is a situation where the cards were completely stacked for something to go wrong.
I’m not defending the actions of those specific cops. They may in fact, be total turds with no business wearing a badge.
My comments weren’t directed at anyone here. They are directed at “journalists” who give zero fks about the truth.
“That typically takes a search warrant…”
And what are the grounds for obtaining a search warrant? Gossip, rumours, and idle speculation?
” While we don’t know the specifics of the woman’s mental illness,”
If any. “Well documented” by who?
” it’s entirely possible…”
It’s also entirely possible the two officers were negligent, ignorant, and a danger to themselves and others and should not have been police officers to start with. If you get to speculate, so does everybody else. Brinton had less than two years as a police officer and yet he seems to have been the lead officer in this case. How much time did the other officer have?
“I’m not defending the actions of those specific cops”
BS. That’s the whole point of your comments.
timactual-A search warrant requires an officer to go before a judge/magistrate and provide probable cause that a crime has been committed and there is evidence related to the crime at a location. An arrest warrant requires probable cause but is for a person.
After reviewing the court documents (undisputed and disputed facts) I discovered Pengelly’s lawyers agreed no warrant was needed to enter the house. The officers were speaking to his mother on the front porch. When they informed her she was under arrest she attempted to flee into the house.
Particularly salient to my original point of sloppy journalism, the article specifically states the officers entered the home without a warrant.
While true, it doesn’t matter. A warrant was not required in this instance. Pengelly’s own lawyer admitted to this.
The mental illness was originally quoted in the article and the court documents state she has a history of depression and has been non compliant with her treatment. The mother was the source of several domestic violence related issues at the home in the past.
The second officer has 20 years of experience with the state highway patrol before taking a position with the local PD. Which brings up the question of why an officer who is an FTO (trains new officers) and another officer with over 2 decades of experience chose to not activate their recording devices? Did the author of that article think to address that question? No. Even though the officers gave an answer in the court documents which was paper thin. This speaks to my original point of poor research on this article by its author.
I’ve provided those documents to AW1Ed this morning via email.
As to my personal motivations, you are free to believe whatever you choose.
Sounds to me like these guys were either in plainclothes or in the dark. The judge evidently agreed that they were not immediately identifiable as LEOs under the circumstances of the incident.
Bottom line, they fucked up. I generally lean pro-LE as a rule, but not in cases like this. If the cop is needlessly being an asshole, then he deserves consequences commensurate with the level of assholery. “Shot somebody without warning who thought he was defending his home from armed intruders in a preventable incident” is very high-level assholery, and the hammer should fall on these dickheads as a result.
They enter a house, for whatever reason, which they have heard gossip saying there are multiple persons living there, one of them a mental case who is rumoured to have made threats, and “military style” weapons.
Assuming they knocked and Bonnie answered the door one of the first questions the police should have asked is “Is anybody else in the house?’ followed by “Are there any weapons in the house?”.
I would find those two idiots guilty just for being stupid.
How about this? Would you agree that 5% of Police Officers have no business being Police Officers due to temperament, mental state, or disposition? If so, you’d realize that even with these 2 guys (not going to call them Police,) went armed into someone’s house, tried to abduct someone, and are shocked they’re being sued, just because they failed to identify themselves, or get an arrest/hold warrant? That should make it pretty clear.
“I know nothing about this case”
Yeah, that comes across pretty clearly.
Sounds like people need to mind their own business, and police officers responding should be in uniform and identify themselves AFTER clearly establishing probably cause. Would not think it a crime to own “military grade weapons” in small town Montana where this PD has 41 officers. What is a military grade weapons anyway? Does my M1A1 still qualify?
I have a stack of “military grade” weapons! Like an M1942 long-blade bayonet and a Kabar belt knife. Both are weapons which were/are issued by the military, ergo…
My wife’s .38 wheelgun is stamped “US NAVY.” Must be “military grade,” right? How about my 102-year-old M1917 US Enfield?
My wife’s .38 wheelgun is stamped “MPD (Memphis PD)”.” Must be “Law Enforcement grade,” right? 🙂
Police get a call that a mentally disturbed person (who they probably have had lots of contact with) is making threats at work. Talk to the folks at work they confirm threats were made and then someone communicates this person has access to firearms.
What are they supposed to do? Take the manager’s word that she’s not a threat despite being the complaining party?
As far as probable cause goes, when a citizen makes a complaint of criminal activity, that pretty much meets the standard to begin an investigation.
As far as being in uniform goes, there are a myriad of legitimate reasons cops may not be in uniform(working on a task force and not wanting to announce their presence to the entire world, working undercover, detectives investigating crimes and don’t want everyone in the neighborhood to know they are talking to witnessess, etc..) . They still have their badges and credentials on them so they can identify themselves.
Have seen no one here argue about whether an investigation should be made. The article even said that the mother was known to the police. Yes, a complaint was made, or as the complainant is quoted as saying, information was passed along. Of course an investigation should move forward. What may, or may not, have precluded a regular arrest warrant from being issued is the statement that the threat did NOT seem imminent to the complainant. Lack of immanency certainly should keep you from just going to the door to try to effect an arrest.
No, none of us was there. What we do know from stories published at the time, assuming them to be factual, is that there was neither an arrest nor a search warrant. We know that the son was grievously injured by the officers. Those circumstances alone demand serious investigation and potential criminal charges against somebody.
OWB-The picture that article paints is they showed up to arrest her. All based off of a single statement allegedly communicated to a witness by one of the investigating officers. No context to that statement. And the assumption the witness to the statement is being truthful.
The officers were conducting an investigation of a criminal complaint. Since the mother was alleged to have committed the crime they went to her home to speak with her. That’s completely reasonable.
But the narrative being painted in the law suit is the inexperienced officer was beating his chest, talking smack, and looking for a confrontation. While that certainly could have been the case, I suspect the truth differs from what is being reported.
On top of that, there is no requirement to get a warrant to arrest someone if the officer is present when the crime is committed. If the mentally disturbed woman decides to attack the investigating officers while they are interviewing her, no warrant is needed to arrest her.
Or they could’ve decided the mother needed an ECO, and were taking her into custody for medical care.
There are lots of legal and reasonable answers to why the mother was arrested without a warrant. None of which are contained in that story.
Either way, I’m in complete agreement with your last paragraph. None of us were there and this definitely needs to see the inside of the court room.
Seems like your main complaint is with this particular article and/or the writer of same. If you are so blasted anxious to pursue the truth, perhaps you should research what others have said and published.
As for me, I am satisfied that this article is in line with others I’ve read elsewhere and probably here as well.
” I suspect the truth d…”
As you are entitled to do. But so are the rest of us.
And I disagree with “the narrative being painted”. Sounds pretty neutral to me.
” If the mentally disturbed woman decides to attack the investigating officers while they are interviewing her, no warrant is needed to arrest her. …….Or they could’ve decided…”
Sounds like your suspicions are more like conclusions (dare I say a narrative?).
“There are lots of legal and reasonable answers to why the mother was arrested without a warrant. None of which are contained in that story.”
Probably because there was no evidence suggesting there were any. Wouldn’t want the reporter to speculate and create a narrative, would we?
” We know that the son was grievously injured by the officers.”
We also know he was not prosecuted for felony assault on the police officers. That would seem to be a significant omission, particularly considering the lawsuit.
“Police get a call that a mentally disturbed person (who they probably have had lots of contact with) is making threats at work. Talk to the folks at work they confirm threats were made and then someone communicates this person has access to firearms.”
All the more reason to be cautious. I am starting to wonder if they bothered to inform their superiors of the situation and their intended actions.
“(who they probably have had lots of contact with)”
There you go again with the speculation. But let’s assume you are correct. They then evidently concluded she was not a significant risk else they would not have braced her inside the house she shared with her brain-damaged and well-armed son without at least a little support. Assuming, of course, Deputy Fife and friend had a brain between them; we know they had virtually no experience. I suspect they had no shortage of enthusiasm, however, which is not a good thing when combined with their lack of experience or intelligence.
And naturally I, too, am not making any judgements on the actons of the two fine, dedicated, officers involved.
This case was and is disgusting.
What led these clowns to believe that they could conduct a warrantless seizure of a person, any person? Most of the sane among us would not respond well to unidentified persons entering our homes to remove anything much less our mother.
With you all who support the vast majority of LEO’s who pay attention and take their oaths of office seriously. But those who do not, are power hungry, or have control issues should find another line of work.
Sounds like the judge may have some sense. We shall see.
Read the last sentence.
I do not really have a side in this and I assume that the wheels of justice will eventually turn in favor of Pengelley due to some overzealous and sloppy LEO’s, but there it is.
https://flatheadbeacon.com/2018/10/24/veteran-shot-cops-sues-officers-city/
Thanks for the link. There are a few things that are different from the first article.
I guess I will have to retract a bit of what I wrote, but my conclusions remain the same; Deputy Fife & friend screwed up, but even worse ( Pengelly was accused of pointing a gun at a woman during a disagreement at Wayfarers State Park. He pleaded not guilty to a single charge of felony assault with a weapon ). But at least they had the blessing of their superiors.
Why on earth the two officers were preoccupied with someone who threatened only to harm herself while completely ignoring someone in the immediate vicinity but not in view who had a history of mental problems and “a single charge of felony assault with a weapon” and was armed with “military grade weapons” is truly awe inspiring.
Agreed.
Sounds along the same line as the two orificers that set up a sting, the “mark” never showed up to be arrested. So the orificers went to the mark’s father’s house, plain clothes, no warrant, no announcement, tried to arrest the “mark” by kidnapping, then were upset & surprised when the father came out guns a’blazing.
Luckily, Mr. Pengelly did not end up in a situation like this. One of former Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik’s most spectacular cock-ups.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jose_Guerena_shooting
Saw the video. Those guys were climbing over eachother to take more shots at a point where it was painfully obvious the target was down. That whole mess was utterly indefensible.
I spoke with one of my cousins who’s a SWAT cop on the topic of the Guerena shooting. His take: very bad shoot, like, bad enough that the officers involved should all go down for murder. That they haven’t is appalling. And why not? Because Guerena’s brother-in-law was a shitbag? Well shit, I have a shitbag gangbanger-wannabe brother-in-law too. He’s a 32-year-old teenager dipshit who’s nothing but trouble, and my wife can’t stand him. Are our lives now forfeit as well?
This one still makes me nauseous. And the loudmouth, a Sgt., was allowed to retire and move to Central America (no extradition, probably). The actual hitman got away with it.
Damn.
I don’t know why you guys are so pro-police.
To me, policemen are Americans willing to shoot other Americans. They don’t give care about you, or their communities. The 2nd amendment is the only thing that protects your family, because the police is gonna get there late when you need them.
If during a deployment something goes wrong and I end up shooting a local national without proper PID, the dead dude is still a foreigner that its a potential enemy combatant, or a enemy sympathizer and supporter.
When a police dude makes the same mistake, the dead is another American citizen. And the police makes soooo many mistakes. Yes, I got it. It is a difficult working environment. But police people made the decision to join a police force and work in that stressful environment. Nobody forced them.
So, it takes an special kind of person to join the police instead of the armed forces.
Just my 2 cents.
I suppose that if when I retire from the Army I end being a cop, this post is going to come back and bite me in the ass.
Oh well.
*end up being a cop
Nah SJ it won’t bite you too hard. There’s enough of us here to testify that it was the Bud Lite talking and if you had of been imbibing a decent beer, that trash talk wouldn’t have come out yo mouth. We lean toward being pro LEO here because many of us are or are related to LEOs or have worked closely with them. We also realize that there are bad apples in every bushel and the bad ones need to be culled. And in some jurisdictions not only are they rotten to the core, many of them rotted from the top down. It happens.
At one point in time a .58 caliber muzzle loading single shot rifled musket Springfield or Enfield was considered a military style assault weapon.
Slow Joe-I assume you’re speaking about my response.
My views could be more accurately described as pro-truth and not pro-police. Cops should be held accountable when the act in an illegal manner. The same as any other American.
That article is full of questionable statements/assertions. It appears to be simply parroting the allegations contained in the civil suit.
It would be akin to posting one of the Dutch Rudder Club clowns law suits as gospel. Responsible reporting isn’t taking allegations at face value.
And as far as joining the police vice the armed forces, there are quite a few people who have done both. There are also quite a few cops who do care about the communities they police, it just doesn’t make the news.
And I’m going to go out on a limb here, but if you really believe “policemen are Americans willing to shoot other Americans”, it’s highly unlikely you actually have any sort of close personal relationship with anyone in the law enforcement field. Making assumptions about people’s character, integrity, or motivations simply based off of their chosen occupation is lazy thinking.
Did you enlist just because you couldn’t make it anywhere else? Of course not. That’s just as silly as thinking all cops just want to shoot people.
Police officers aren’t unique and special snow flakes. They are the same people we grew up around, played little league with, sat in church next to and served with. Sometimes they make mistakes. And sometimes people wearing a badge are criminals attempting to hide behind that authority (those turds should be ripped out from the profession, root and stem). The vast majority of officers are decent and caring human beings trying their best. Human beings aren’t perfect.
“-I assume you’re speaking about my response.”
Jeez. You make a lot of assumptions. Believe it or not the subject has come up here a number of times before what I assume (yeah, I can do it too) is your recent arrival.
There was a video out of Sacramento last week of two officers affecting an arrest. The suspect (it turned out to be a false identification BTW) is standing there, motionless, with his arms straight out to his side when one of the cops runs up behind him and knocks him to the ground with a flying kick-absolutely indefensible.
I realize that the police have a difficult job and most of them serve the public well, going beyond what is required of them to help people in need. But some are just thugs with badges and it only takes dealing with just a few of those to sour the public on the force at large.
The video, not quite knocked to the ground, but inappropriate use of force all the same.
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=2561070330880196
Could have severed the guys spinal cord.
Hope he finds new employment as a traffic cone.
The cops are saying the dude refused to obey commands prior to the takedown.
I have no idea whether that is legal.
That specific kick is taught in some academies. Can’t speak for them all.
Kicking a guy from behind who is passively resisting (not fighting but not following commands) is not taught in any law enforcement setting I’m aware of.
That said, a few seconds of video footage is not enough to determine legality. I would be surprised if professional standards didn’t review it.
Then again, it’s the internet, so I could be wrong.
Producing, naturally, a confrontation which the victim will be charged with instigating and which fortunately did not get worse.
” it only takes dealing with just a few of those to sour the public on the force at large.”
Particularly when the force at large supports, at least tacitly, such behavior. I used to be solidly pro-police, but not anymore.
“they attempted to take his mother”
Lucky they ain’t dead.
I respect LEO’s but put your hands on my mother
and you will be a dead LEO. I will go to jail
for the rest of my life but you will be dead.
Fair enough trade?
26Limabeans-Your comment touches on something I’m passionate about. Far too many issues that aren’t in the law enforcement realm are relegated there because of piss poor community leadership.
Mental health issues are a clear example of this. People keep talking about an opioid crisis, there has been a mental health crisis ongoing in this country for years. Yet we do nothing to address it. NOTHING. It’s worse than seeking care through the VA for mental health issues.
CSBs are underfunded, understaffed and overworked. Hospitals don’t have bed space or providers to adequately care for people who desperately need help. Instead of communities taking responsibility for this issue, they relegate it to law enforcement.
Law enforcement is not trained, not equipped, and does not possess the tools needed to address this issue. Law enforcement has the training, equipment and personnel to deal with law enforcement issues.
Using cops to deal with mental health issues (which is how things currently work) is akin to using a crescent wrench to treat cancer. Not the right tool to address the issue.
So communities wash their hands of the problem, push it on people who aren’t trained/equipped to intervene in an effective manner and then wails/gnashes their teeth if there is a bad outcome. In what world does that make any sense?
And I won’t get on my soap box about families refusing to put forth the effort to access the resources that are available. I’ll just say, if that guy was living with his mom, was competent to own a firearm, then he’s competent enough to seek the care his mother needs.
There’s a lot of blame to go around. And LEOs have own their share of it. But to pretend law enforcement is solely to blame for a shitty situation that could’ve been prevented is short sighted.
If the local CSB was properly funded/staffed and local facilities had the bed space needed then perhaps mom would’ve been adequately treated. And this contact never would’ve occurred.
I understand your concerns. All good points.
A sibling of mine grew up at the Fernald
School, The Home for Little Wanderers and
the Massachusetts State Hospital in Waltham.
The rest of us piled into the station wagon and visited every weekend for many years. I grew up with
a pretty good first hand education in the mental
institutions of the time.
Then the democrats closed them all. Put the patients
on the street to be cared for by all the “non profits”.
I have been saying this for decades and liberals
laugh it off as a talking point but I witnessed it
up close and personal.
So do we go back to State run mental hospitals?
I don’t know. They were not pretty and my memory sees
only rainy days and old men hudled in dark corners of
the exercise yard.
It should never be a law enforcement issue.
Way outside their expertise.
I can remember the great “deinstitutionalization” and the “freeing of the unjustly committed”. Same result; more homeless, more misery. They may have solved one small problem, but they created one even larger problem.
“So do we go back to State run mental hospitals?”
Awfully expensive since they sold off the old ones to properly vetted developers.
Those days were truly horrifying. Mentally ill folks roaming around large cities, most with no idea how to survive that way. Many didn’t. Some were quite happy with the new freedom they had, but still had no idea what to do with it.
Discovering these poor people dead in alleyways, vacant structures, and along river banks was brutal upon all those who tried mightily to identify who they were, find grieving next of kin (many of whom had no idea where their loved ones had gone), and otherwise make sense of any of it. Yes, much of it was forced upon the police. And other officials with no better idea of what to do than the unfortunates they were trying to help.
Were the institutions perfect? Of course not. Were they better than pushing people out onto the streets who had no skills or experience in taking care of themselves? In most cases, at least they HAD been reasonably safe in their former lives. But no, the lefties thought it better to force them into what was all too often terrifying circumstances.
“was competent to own a firearm”
It’s that silly old 2nd Amendment; Americans are considered competent to own a firearm until proven in a court to be incompetent. AKA innocent until proven guilty.
Mayzbe I had 2 many Bud Lights, but I never saw the Penguin as a law enforcement dude….
Didn’t he get in a little fight with the Bat of Gotham or something?
Damn auto correct. It fixes most of my intentional shitty spelling.
The Bat of Gotham. That’s funny shit right there.
I’m a complex avian creature.
AW1Ed-Just downloaded the publicly accessible documents from PACER. A brief first glance of 300 pages of material shows whomever wrote the linked article clearly did not perform due diligence.
If I write something up, send the supporting documentation, would you consider posting it?
You can add it right on this post as a comment, or I’ll email you and I’ll be happy to post it up. Your choice.
The main thing I wanted to get up is the support omg documentation. There’s about 600 pages pertinent. Want to make sure I can get fact checked and not cherry picking evidence.
I’ll post my response here in a day or 2.
I’ll add an update to the title so the post won’t get lost in the crowd.
I remain semi-confused-must be reality kickin’ in. However, I’ll wager there are more befucked journos than befucked cops.
Yeah, those bad cops give the 10% who are good guys a bad name.
I had someone up above tell me if I was so wound up over this to go do my own due diligence. That was a fair point. So, I’ve conducted my own due diligence. As a private citizen it literally took me 10 minutes and $60 to obtain more than 600 pages of court documents. It all started with googling “how do I find court documents”. And I’m glad I did. While this article may not be libel/slander, it definitely isn’t reporting. Facts are omitted, misreported, or just plain wrong. The basic narrative of the article is a young, inexperienced officer is looking for a confrontation. Shows up to the home, is not clearly identified as a police officer, enters the home illegally, and shoots the son unjustifiably. • When the officers arrived at Pengelly’s residence and spoke with his mother, they didn’t identify themselves as police officers o False. Pengelly’s lawyer admits the officers identified themselves to the mother. Disputed facts document para 13. o Both officers were in uniform. Undisputed facts document. Para 30. • The officers entered the home without an arrest warrant. o True but immaterial. o In this specific instance a warrant was not required to enter the home. Pengelly’s attorney agreed with this. Undisputed facts document para 52. o Pengelly’s mother came outside to talk with officers. The officers told her she was under arrest and going to be taken in for a mental health evaluation. She said no and tried to run back into the house. As the officers were attempting to affect the arrest, they entered an open door while struggling with her. Pengelly’s own lawyer admits this. The officers didn’t kick in the door. They were speaking to the mother on the front porch and she attempted to run inside to avoid arrest. Disputed facts document, para 39. • Officer Brinton had been in law enforcement for less than 2 years. o While the duration of his employment is true, his qualifications are omitted in this discussion. Officer Brinton was a member of SRT (SWAT), promoted to… Read more »
” The officers didn’t kick in the door.”
Who said they did?
” An officer who has accomplished all of that in 2 years is fairly impressive.”
Not really. It just tells us he had even less time in the field dealing with people than we thought. There is a reason medical doctors spend a lot of time actually working with patients and not just in classrooms.
“• The officers used excessive force.
o False.”
Not your call. It’s a matter of judgement. In this case, a jury will also make its own judgement on that.
” I’m betting this is why t…”
I’m betting that is not the only reason.
“ Disputed facts document para 77.
o Having an AR-15 at the low ready position would cause an officer to fear for his life and safety.”
Who disputed that fact? Anyone who was “not in fear…” should have been arrested for a mental health exam.
“ Disputed facts document para 76.
o Pengelly never lowered his rifle, he took his finger off the trigger. His lawyer agrees this statement was made but says it’s not accurate because of his injuries/pain meds.
Disputed facts document, para 77.
o It was reasonable to assume Pengelly was going to use the rifle if he refused to drop it. ”
If he took his finger off the trigger it seems reasonable he was trying to deescalate the situation. No, it was reasonable to assume he MIGHT use the rifle. If it was reasonable to assume he was going to use the rifle it was also reasonable for him to assume the police officers were going to shoot him.
” the narrative painted that the door was kicked in”
Again, show me. That’s *your* narrative.
Out of curiosity, just what were those 600 pages of court documents and when were they available?
“lawful but awful”
Maybe, but they still acted irresponsibly and negligently. As we have heard in the past from law-enforcement types here, circumstances like these warrant a great deal of circumspection. These two clowns were oblivious to the possible dangers, the same dangers they later play up to excuse their behavior.
I’m uploading them to email right now. Using a hot spot so its slow.
AW1Ed-Where should I submit the supporting documentation?
Check your email.
I’ll have to upload them in the AM when I get into the office. The upload keeps crashing, probably because of my hotspot.
Still not sure why one commenter is continuing to argue with us instead of the writer of the article. We got that he/she/it didn’t like the way the article was written.
Let’s assume that the point is “proven.” So what? We will all still not have been there. And even if we had been, each one of us would see something a little different from the rest.
My point is we should all be skeptical of “news” articles. I was attempting to point out events that could’ve occurred.
It’s becoming increasingly common to take the default position that allegations=truth. Just because someone puts pen to paper does not make those words the truth or even accurate. It’s a pet peeve of mine.
I don’t post too much around here, mainly lurk. But I had something to say on this particular article.
Anyways, I’ve emailed the documentation to AW1Ed. He’ll be posting them shortly.
Being skeptical of what appears in the “news” may be the most commonly held trait among those who post comments around here. Who knows if that is also true of those who don’t share their thoughts, but it is a very common complaint among those of us who do.
So, pardon us for defending ourselves when we are accused of saying things we have not said, making assumptions we did not make, jumping to conclusions when we did not jump, or being biased in ways we simply are not.
You are free to be offended by anything you wish to allow to offend you. If you elect to be offended by things that did not happen, then don’t expect much sympathy from those of us being accused of things we did not do.
That was my point in asking, “So what?” You took offense at the manner in which the article was written. You are free to do so. What I don’ recall is anyone defending the writer, so we naturally resent your attacking us for something that we did not do.
But good on you for doing additional research. That is always a good thing. Perhaps you can even learn some things from the many here who have experience in and around law enforcement. Like the notion that a guy with two years total in law enforcement but managed to spend much of that time gaining an assortment of certifications to the point of now being an instructor in same was clearly NOT out on the street gaining much needed practical experience in dealing with real people on the real streets of his town. We don’t know how much time he spent on the street, but obviously he wasn’t while he was in the classroom.
The other thing you should understand about a lot of us here – we don’t like speculation. Most of us want facts. “What if’s” just don’t cut it.
I thought I was clear I wasn’t attacking anyone here. I specifically pointed out several times my comments were not pointed at anyone here. They were directed at the article and its author.
Regardless of my intention, I failed in the practical application. My apologies.
I’m grateful for the hard work and effort everyone puts in for this place. Continuing it since John’s passing and the recent efforts to improve is no small feat.
Thanks for the effort.