In a shocking, and apparent 4th amendment rights violation, NYC undercover police officers followed an 18 year old boy to his home, forcibly entered it, and shot and killed him in front of his 6 year old brother and grandmother. They shot him because they believed he had a gun on him, and were following him because he was seen carrying out a drug deal (they found a bag of marijuana in the toilet he had thrown there moments before he was shot).
The apparent facts of this case so far:
... new, key evidence indicates that Ramarley Graham was not only unarmed, he also did not run into his house from police, and he did not struggle with them once they got inside.
and the source of evidence?
[a] system of surveillance cameras mounted around the outside of [the] house.
"[The police] can't lie because that camera shows everything," Minzie said. "When he came in here he wasn't running. He [was] walking." It's a detail that has been confirmed to PIX11 News by more than one source who viewed the video. They say the video shows that the teen walked into his home around 3:00 P.M. Thursday, about three-and-a-half minutes before police entered. It's a detail that directly refutes the NYPD's initial description that Graham ran away from cops, who were in hot pursuit of the young man they suspected had a gun and drugs.
The forced entry happened after:
''With two friends, Mr. Graham went into the bodega. But they left quickly, and as they did, team members who were observing the bodega radioed their colleagues that they believed one of the three — who they later learned was Mr. Graham — “was armed,” Mr. Kelly said.
The impression that Mr. Graham had a gun was reinforced as officers tracked the three men. The group next went to a home at 728 East 229th Street, where Mr. Graham was spotted leaving with what appeared to be the butt of a gun in his waistband, according to another set of radio transmissions among the narcotics team members.
Police Chief Kelly has already indicated the case has serious implications regarding the justified use of force here, placing the officers involved on desk duty without badges or guns. But to me, the most alarming fact so far is that of the officers forcibly entering the home without a search warrant, making the presumption that it was their lives that were in danger, and shooting first with no verifiable reason to do so.
If the libertarians and others paranoid (or plain old justifiably concerned) about encroaching police authoritarianism need a new case to rally around, then I think this is it.