[Jeremiad #13] How can she commit suicide by cop if the cops don't show up to a dark and sleeping house and barge in?

[Watchman #14] silent entry in the dark? deploy night vision equipment When police arrived on scene, Sapp’s ex showed them how to break into the home and they followed his directions.

Hey check this out. The call to police was at 8 a.m.

Per the boyfriend's instructions, they opened the kitchen window and unlocked the back door with a clothes hanger.

https://www.clickorlando.com/news/2019/10/28/winter-park-police-shoot-woman-during-well-being-check/

Winter Park police shoot woman during well-being check

Woman faces criminal charges

[excerpt]

It happened 8 a.m. on a Sunday in September 2017. While Sapp was fast asleep in the Winter Park home she rented, her ex-boyfriend was calling Winter Park police.

"My girlfriend was threatening suicide last night, I just came to the house and trying to get in," Sapp's ex-boyfriend told the 911 operator.

It was a five minute, 34 second call that Sapp said changed her life.

"She is very well armed," Sapp's ex-boyfriend told the 911 operator when asked if Sapp had a gun.

"She's threatened suicide by cop before," he said.

"I was asleep in my bed. I was not at all contemplating a suicide or suicide by cop," Sapp told News 6.

When police arrived, Sapp's ex showed them how to enter the house, according to an interview with officer Jeff Marcum obtained by News 6.

"There’s one way into the house to crawl through a window and I don't want to do that at this point. I want someone here with me," Sapp's ex-boyfriend said during the call.

One officer lifted a kitchen window, leaned in and used a clothing hanger to unlock the back door, according to police.

Meanwhile, Marcum was still getting information from Sapp's ex.

"I'm asking if there's any weapons in the house, he tells me there's enough weapons in the house to start a revolution," Marcum said.

Then the three officers made their way into the house, through the living room, and finally to Sapp's bedroom where they see her sleeping.

"I'm thinking about the call suicide by cop," Marcum says during the interview.

Marcum, a 23-year-veteran with the Winter Park Police Department, describes in an interview with the Florida Department of Law Enforcement what happened next.

"We're yelling at her to, you know, let us see your hands, let us see your hands," Marcum said.

"I didn't have my glasses on, I'm legally blind," Sapp said. "I couldn't identify anybody, but I remember there being shadows figures standing in my room. They pulled the covers off me."

"At that point when she pulled the cover, Ms. Sapp immediately came up with a handgun and pointed it right at us," Marcum told investigators.

Sapp admits she slept with two guns. She and her ex had been in a fight the night before and she feared it was him coming back to the house, she said.

Hey check this out. The call to police was at 8 a.m.

Yeah, I know it was 8 a.m.

How did YOU arrive at "night vision equipment"?

The cops have the advantage making silent entry in the dark and approaching the subject sleeping in her bed. This is especially true if they deploy night vision equipment.

I mean, aside from the body cam "found footage" I presented lol

Yeah, I know it was 8 a.m.

How did YOU arrive at "night vision equipment"?

Silly me, I read the Matt Agorist thread article and did not fact check his "reporting" that it was night. I know better than to believe a word written by that source, but don't have the time to check his each and every statement.

[Matt Agorist/Thread Article] On the night in question, Sapp had done nothing wrong, had committed no crime, and harmed no one—yet police broke into her home, raided her bedroom as she slept, and shot her.

[Jeremiad #9]

#9. To: Deckard (#0)

I fail to see what possibly could be gained by the police making a wellness check in the dark. A phone call, a knock on the door after say 8 AM?

[...]

If, when responding to the thread article, you knew it was 8 AM, why did you talk about the police making a wellness check in the dark?

I would have checked myself.....AT A DECENT HOUR.....

It happened at 8am.

A PHONE CALL... Are you armed and threatening to commit suicide by cop? Can we come over to talk about it?

A KNOCK ON THE DOOR AFTER 8 a.m. ... She answers blam! blam!! Oh, the report was serious?

The cops have the advantage making silent entry in the dark and approaching the subject sleeping in her bed. This is especially true if they deploy night vision equipment.

Okay, we've established that it is 8 am.

The real question is...how did you go from a phone call being a bad idea...and a knock on the door being a bad idea...to the rather bizarre idea of having them go in like Seal Team 6?

Okay, we've established that it is 8 am.

And we have established that your conflicting claims said you knew it was 8 a.m. and then went on the say it was dark.

The real question is...how did you go from a phone call being a bad idea...and a knock on the door being a bad idea...to the rather bizarre idea of having them go in like Seal Team 6?

They went in prepared to meet an armed person who reportedly threatened to commit suicide by cop. You may approach that by giving advance notice that you are coming, and arrive with a sympathy blanket to put around her. Or you may delay, as you suggested, inviting a negligence lawsuit.

Blindness was not the best defence for pointing a gun at the police. She should have gone with being suicidal.

The real question is...how did you go from a phone call being a bad idea...and a knock on the door being a bad idea...to the rather bizarre idea of having them go in like Seal Team 6?

They went in prepared to meet an armed person who reportedly threatened to commit suicide by cop.

...reportedly

Is that your vision for America?

Any joker can make a 911 call, stand outside of any house, and direct military police into the house while the occupants sleep?

You're gonna fit right in to the Pope's New World Order.

Is that your vision for America?

Any joker can make a 911 call, stand outside of any house, and direct military police into the house while the occupants sleep?

Of course, police respond to the report they receive and not to the Monday morning quarterbacking of some lying gobshite on a website.

Or as Matt Agorist would put it, they put her in jail with no bond for no reason at all.

You're gonna fit right in to the Pope's New World Order.

Of course, there is no indication that the Pope in particular, or Catholics in general, (or Jews, Muslims, ordinary Protestants or Fundies) had diddly squat to do with this case. That is just like the rest of your nutty drivel. Go write a wacko book about the Revelation.

Go write a wacko book about the Revelation.

You may not believe what is written in Revelation...but the Pope does...and so do the rest of the elites who use it as their play book.

And right now those folks outrank you and are working tirelessly to bring about their NWO/OWG.

Your vision of militarized police in night vision goggles entering in on sleeping citizens plays right in to their whole plan.

You may not believe what is written in Revelation...but the Pope does...and so do the rest of the elites who use it as their play book.

And right now those folks outrank you and are working tirelessly to bring about their NWO/OWG.

I do not believe what is in books about the Revelation when they are written by internet wackos, such as multi-handled nutbags.

And right now those folks outrank you and are working tirelessly to bring about their NWO/OWG.

I have all those Papists who outrank me fooled. I have a plot waiting for me in a Baptist cemetery, where my mother and brother await my arrival.

I do not believe what is in books about the Revelation when they are written by internet wackos, such as multi-handled nutbags.

How about recognized Bible scholars who write about Revelation? And who are these "multi-handled nutbags" you refer to?

I have a plot waiting for me in a Baptist cemetery, where my mother and brother await my arrival.

You are a Baptist now? I'd believe that your mother and brother are Christians before I'd believe you are.

And who are these "multi-handled nutbags" you refer to?

I reject watchmen, editors or interpreters who say stuff like, "My predictions, on the other hand have never even once failed to come to pass. I refute all futurists everywhere that ever appeared on this great Earth of ours, bar none. " Or, "After the Earth is destroyed by fire 1000 years from now (in a great war), those found worthy get to go to Mars and live in the New Jerusalem."

They are as reliable as an FBI midyear review. To use a Brit expression, it's all just a bunch of old Barry. It's like the stuff that issues forth from Matagorda, which looks like Spanish for kill the fat lady.

I'd believe that your mother and brother are Christians before I'd believe you are.

I'd believe you are a warped futurist fundie before I'd believe you are sane.

Just a reminder:

Title: Cops Break Into Innocent Sleeping Woman’s Home, Shoot Her—Now She Faces Life in Prison

Even if the police claim that she drew a weapon on them is true, even if she had fired a shot, even if she had killed one or more police, I would grant her the "I was in fear for my life" defense and vote to acquit. We all know if she was holding a cell phone and police shot and killed her, that would be the police defense.

I'm really sick of how prosecutors and courts hold citizens to higher police standards in shooting situations than they hold trained police.

That no doubt involved difficult concepts to grasp, but if you spend some time mulling over it and discussing it with friends, your father and your pastor, you should eventually understand the reasoning.

I think Mr White should rather speak with his psychiatrist.

I would not expect you to be aware of this, but when someone is awakened from sleep by intruders in his/her home shining flashlights in the face in a room that is otherwise dark,

Sunrise in Winter Park, Florida in September, 2017 was 7:10 am. The police entered at 8:00.

She had blackout curtains or are you just making shit up?

I am not making anything up. You are claiming to know how much light was in the room based on the time of day. I'm just pointing out that curtains and say being on the west side may be a factor in how well how much light there was.

I'm not saying she had black out curtains. I just posted that in case you didn't know that curtains black out or just regular ones can dim the light. As I pointed out especially if her room is on the west side.

Or maybe she is lying. I don't know.

Bobbie Sapp, 49, is a registered nurse

Being an RN she probably works both day and night shifts. Her sleeping area would be fitted with curtains that make the room dark as needed.

It's insane. Now she insists she did not draw a weapon on them by virtue of the fact that she was still alive and only one cop fired one round. I think that's a credible argument but even if she did draw, I consider it a reasonable "I was in fear for my life" defense and I'd find her not guilty on that basis. Even if she had drawn and fired, and even if she had drawn, fired and killed.

She did NOT ask for this to happen to her. Whatever procedures these cops follow in these cases, they need to be revised, and the current defective procedures they follow now are not the responsibility of this woman or any other resident.

As I pointed out especially if her room is on the west side.

Or maybe she lived in the basement. Right?

Or maybe she lived in the basement. Right?

No I don't think she lived or was in the basement. What leads you to belive that?

What leads you to determine her curtains were open?

Ever been to a hotel and you wake up and it's later than you think because the curtains were drawn?

I'm just pointing out you are making assumptions. You do that all the time.

Like I said maybe she is lying. Maybe she is telling the truth and the police are lying. I don't know or pretend to know. You pretend to know.

The incident didn't happen outside. Because it is light outside doesn't say how much light was on the inside.

Officers responded at 8:27 a.m. Sapp did not say it was dark. Agorist wrote, "On the night in question...." It was the day in question, and the light in the room is not clearly established.

The information in the article relates that it was light enough for a legally blind person to make out shadowy figures standing in the room.

“I didn’t have my glasses on, I’m legally blind,” Sapp said. “I couldn’t identify anybody, but I remember there being shadows figures standing in my room. They pulled the covers off me.”

“At that point when she pulled the cover, Ms. Sapp immediately came up with a handgun and pointed it right at us,” Marcum told investigators.

- - - - - - - - - -

Sapp disputes the notion that she ever pointed a gun. She says that had she actually pointed a gun, she would be dead because more than one of the cops would’ve fired their guns.

One shot to the right shoulder and she was not pointing a gun.

She is allegedly legally blind. She was allegedly brandishing a gun and could not see what she was aiming it at. That can get a legally blind person in trouble should he or she go into the woods unaccompanied to hunt. In general, blind people are required to be accompanied; to have a non-hunting partner as a seeing guide.

Blind people may be licensed to own guns, but they are not relieved of the responsibility of knowing what they are aiming at. She was aiming at cops in uniform, with badges, perhaps unaware of their being cops due her poor vision. Her poor vision would be an explanation, perhaps a mitigating factor, but not an excuse.

A jury can decide whether she was justified in aiming a gun in self-defense, where her poor vision prevented her from knowing what she was aiming at.

Another question would be, if she were justified in aiming her gun at unidentified shadows in her room, were the shadowy cops justified in shooting her in the shoulder? A finding that she was justified would not establish that the cops were not justified.

Another factor to consider is that the officers were almost certainly shouting some form of command, and there is no evidence that Sapp is deaf.

" Cops Break Into Innocent Sleeping Woman’s Home, Shoot Her—Now She Faces Life in Prison "

Stone, I guess to some, that makes perfect sense.

I am of the opinion that it is evil, very immoral, and total bullshit !!!

Blind people may be licensed to own guns, but they are not relieved of the responsibility of knowing what they are aiming at. She was aiming at cops in uniform, with badges, perhaps unaware of their being cops due her poor vision. Her poor vision would be an explanation, perhaps a mitigating factor, but not an excuse.

Cops are routinely excused from shooting civilians that posed no threat at all based purely on their perception of danger. To be consistent in applying laws equally to all, civilians must be afforded the same legal consideration. There is little question that this woman had a legitimate "fear for my life" defense when she was awakened by 3 men in her bedroom.

Another question would be, if she were justified in aiming her gun at unidentified shadows in her room, were the shadowy cops justified in shooting her in the shoulder? A finding that she was justified would not establish that the cops were not justified.

That's not a question in this case as the cops are not on trial. But certainly standing precedent will state that the police shooting her was justified. If she is found not guilty of any crime related to the shooting, this question may come up in a civil court context should she decide to sue the police.

A shooting takes place where no threat existed does not necessarily require that a finding of criminal guilt occurred on the party that fired the shot, even if it results in injury or death. This is most often the case when cops shoot civilians but has occurred in extremely rare cases, at least one where a civilian shot and killed a cop during a home raid. It was deemed justified as the homeowner had no reasonable basis for knowing that police were invading his home.

Being awakened from sleep in one's own home by police would seem to be a qualifying case of this woman having no reasonable basis for knowing police were present.

Another factor to consider is that the officers were almost certainly shouting some form of command, and there is no evidence that Sapp is deaf.

Shouting commands wouldn't necessarily include identifying themselves, and again, doing so to a person who is in the process of awakening and who is legally blind creates an extremely dubious certainty in the person who was just awakened, particularly when that person is a woman living alone, awakened by 3 men whom she she does not know and who entered her home uninvited and without her knowledge.

By any fair standard, she had a legitimate "fear for my life" defense that is routinely afforded police. Failing to afford that standard in this case is a clear violation of failure to apply that law equally to all persons.

So you're saying she had someone in bed with her to help her point the gun?

You may also consider the hunting example consideration that she needs a seeing guide not only to see her target, but to see further in the distance, behind her target, to shoot safely and not hit an unintended person. What will the bullet hit if it just misses, or cleanly passes through the intended target?

Cops are routinely excused from shooting civilians that posed no threat at all....

Are you seriously arguing that Bobbie Sapp aiming a firearm at the police “posed no threat at all”?

There is little question that this woman had a legitimate "fear for my life" defense when she was awakened by 3 men in her bedroom.

Then she can plead self-defense. A problem may be that she failed to respond to verbal commands.

Another question would be, if she were justified in aiming her gun at unidentified shadows in her room, were the shadowy cops justified in shooting her in the shoulder? A finding that she was justified would not establish that the cops were not justified.

That's not a question in this case as the cops are not on trial. But certainly standing precedent will state that the police shooting her was justified. If she is found not guilty of any crime related to the shooting, this question may come up in a civil court context should she decide to sue the police.

It is a question of whether or not charges are filed against the police. The police had a gun aimed at them. One of them shot the subject in the shoulder and removed the threat. The responding officers are not responsible for the content of the report to which they responded. If the caller reported false information, he could be liable for a felony. Had she died, he could have been liable for felony murder.

She cannot sue the police, or the police department. She can try to sue Winter Haven, or her ex who called in the report, and showed the cops how to effect entry.

Being awakened from sleep in one's own home by police would seem to be a qualifying case of this woman having no reasonable basis for knowing police were present.

Up to the point where they scream their commands and make it known that they are cops.

Shouting commands wouldn't necessarily include identifying themselves....

https://www.clickorlando.com/news/2017/09/18/winter-park-police-officer-shoots-armed-woman-threatening-suicide-police-say/

Winter Park police Sgt. Garvin McComey said officers tried to talk with the woman, who started pointing a gun at one officer. Officers tried to subdue the woman with a Taser, but she continued to point the weapon, police said.

The officer shot her in the right shoulder after she did not respond to several commands to put the gun down, he said.

- - - - - - - - - -

A shooting takes place where no threat existed....

The cops reported to a scene of a subject who allegedly threatened suicide by cop.

The subject pulled a gun and aimed it at the cops.

You hypothetical has no basis.

By any fair standard, she had a legitimate "fear for my life" defense....

A court can decide that. Self-defense is an available defense, not a get out of jail free card. She must justify aiming a gun at uniformed cops whom she was unable to identify due to her impaired vision. She must justify not putting on her glasses in order to identify her targets before aiming a gun at them.

Cops are routinely excused from shooting civilians that posed no threat at all....

Are you seriously arguing that Bobbie Sapp aiming a firearm at the police “posed no threat at all”?

You have clearly, knowingly and intentionally taken my comment out of context.

There is little question that this woman had a legitimate "fear for my life" defense when she was awakened by 3 men in her bedroom.

Then she can plead self-defense. A problem may be that she failed to respond to verbal commands.

Her first defense is that she never aimed a gun at them at all. The claim by police that she did is in dispute. But assuming she did, I believe she does have a legitimate self defense claim.

Being awakened from sleep in one's own home by police would seem to be a qualifying case of this woman having no reasonable basis for knowing police were present.

Up to the point where they scream their commands and make it known that they are cops.

So she is obligated to accept the word of strange men in her bedroom that they are cops. Men she cannot she clearly? This is not about who they were, but whether her armed reaction, if it was indeed an armed reaction, was reasonable given her state of mind being freshly awakened and what facts she could be certain of in this state of mind, facts that go beyond who these men were claiming to be.

By any fair standard, she had a legitimate "fear for my life" defense....

A court can decide that. Self-defense is an available defense, not a get out of jail free card. She must justify aiming a gun at uniformed cops whom she was unable to identify due to her impaired vision. She must justify not putting on her glasses in order to identify her targets before aiming a gun at them.

As though in an in-home invasion in her bedroom by those with criminal intent, she is legally obligated to put on her glasses before taking defensive measures *just in case* the men in her bedroom are cops...

That's far too late.

Cops are routinely excused from shooting civilians that posed no threat at all....

Are you seriously arguing that Bobbie Sapp aiming a firearm at the police “posed no threat at all”?

You have clearly, knowingly and intentionally taken my comment out of context.

No, you started your comments with inapplicable blather. I pointed out the inappropriateness of your deliberately skewed context. The instant case does not concern a case where the subject posed no threat at all.

Her first defense is that she never aimed a gun at them at all. The claim by police that she did is in dispute.

Three cops against one lady with two guns in her bed. The defense that the cops shot her for no reason at all will be as persuasive as the dindu defense.

But assuming she did, I believe she does have a legitimate self defense claim.

The judicial branch can sort that out with a full set of facts to judge on.

As though in an in-home invasion in her bedroom by those with criminal intent, she is legally obligated to put on her glasses before taking defensive measures *just in case* the men in her bedroom are cops...

She will be required to justify why she picked up a gun and aimed it at uniformed cops whom she could not identify as such because she is legally blind. Being blind and unable to see and identify one’s intended target does not make it lawful to aim a gun and what one cannot clearly see or identify.

I will wait for the trial and accept whatever they find.

As though in an in-home invasion in her bedroom by those with criminal intent....

Here you go again. That is pure, absolute bullshit. There is no evidence whatever that the responding officers invaded anything, nor that they had any criminal intent. To the contrary, there is evidence that they responded appropriately to the report that they were given.

Are you seriously arguing that Bobbie Sapp aiming a firearm at the police “posed no threat at all”?

You have clearly, knowingly and intentionally taken my comment out of context.

No, you started your comments with inapplicable blather. I pointed out the inappropriateness of your deliberately skewed context. The instant case does not concern a case where the subject posed no threat at all.

Try reading my full statement. I was comparing the "fear for my life" defense routinely invoked by police for when they shoot people even when no threat exists, with this case where a woman is accused of acting proactively to defend her person. My point, which you are negligently refusing to acknowledge, is that this "fear for my life" defense is not one that can lawfully be available ONLY to police, and that this fear is already well established to mean what the person in fear was knowledgable of, which may differ from the actual facts at the time.

A cop shooting a man getting out of his car because he held his wallet with both hands was deemed justified because of the fear the cop felt regardless of the fact that there was zero danger. The facts on the scene don't matter. What is in the mind of the person with the gun does matter.

Now perhaps you yourself just got out of bed and were not fully cognizant of my entire comment: It follows:

Cops are routinely excused from shooting civilians that posed no threat at all based purely on their perception of danger. To be consistent in applying laws equally to all, civilians must be afforded the same legal consideration. There is little question that this woman had a legitimate "fear for my life" defense when she was awakened by 3 men in her bedroom.

....

She will be required to justify why she picked up a gun and aimed it at uniformed cops whom she could not identify as such because she is legally blind. Being blind and unable to see and identify one’s intended target does not make it lawful to aim a gun and what one cannot clearly see or identify.

Being in her own bedroom, in her own house, awakened by 3 male strangers that were uninvited sure sounds like a fully justified and legitimate "fear for my life" defense to me, and taking aim at them, as best she could until such time as she is satisfied that no danger exists, sure sounds like a legitimate defense to me.

As though in an in-home invasion in her bedroom by those with criminal intent....

Here you go again. That is pure, absolute bullshit. There is no evidence whatever that the responding officers invaded anything, nor that they had any criminal intent. To the contrary, there is evidence that they responded appropriately to the report that they were given.

You again miss my point, negligently or willingly. My point was: What if this woman WAS being invaded by someone with criminal intent, like her ex-boyfriend? Your stated position is that if instead of cops these 3 men were thugs there to rape and murder her, she would be legally prohibited from aiming her gun at them until after she puts her glasses on.

That is a death sentence.

Cops are routinely excused from shooting civilians that posed no threat at all based purely on their perception of danger.

Your false predicate is still false.

Let me help a brother out:

Cops are routinely excused from shooting civilians that posed no threat at all based purely on their reasonable perception of danger.

What if this woman WAS being invaded by someone with criminal intent, like her ex-boyfriend?

I could have been Attila the Hun, and two of his henchmen. You support the right of a blind woman to pick up a gun and aim it at an unidentified target because she cannot see well enough to identify cops in full uniform.

The right to defend oneself does not grant the right to break the law in so doing. Recall the Arkansas lady, barred from possessing a gun because of a prior, picking up a gun in justified self-defense. She was busted for unlawful possession of a firearm.

She is going to have to defend that she picked up a gun and aimed it at an unidentified person who was a cop in full uniform. If a fully sighted person couldn’t do it, what provision in law permits a blind person to do it?

When she aimed her gun at the cop, the cop was certainly justified in perceiving a deadly threat, and fully justified in shooting her.

She had no way of knowing if she faced a deadly threat or not. In picking up the gun, she faced a deadly threat of her own making. She could reasonably fear the unknown, but she is going to have to sell to a jury that she had a right to aim her gun at the unknown.

She can always hope for an anarcho-libertarian judge and jury.

That is a death sentence.

A blind woman challenging three armed cops to a gunfight is as close as she is going to get to a death sentence. Especially if she has been reported to have been threatening to commit suicide by cop.

She had no way of knowing if she faced a deadly threat or not. In picking up the gun, she faced a deadly threat of her own making. She could reasonably fear the unknown, but she is going to have to sell to a jury that she had a right to aim her gun at the unknown.

If someone is in your house and they are not supposed to be there. You live alone like she apparetly did because her boyfriend wasn't with her anymore. That means anyone in her house would be there without her permission and she could legitimately think it is a threat and kill them in self defense.

The cops could think their life was in danger too. But they didn't get a search warrant. They were wrong coming in someones home without a warrant.

I could have been Attila the Hun, and two of his henchmen. You support the right of a blind woman to pick up a gun and aim it at an unidentified target because she cannot see well enough to identify cops in full uniform.

Let me help you out by appending:

.... in her own home, in her bedroom. Yes, because she has a reasonable expectation of security within her own home. I suppose you don't believe people have any such reasonable expectation of security within their home. Fine.

She had no way of knowing if she faced a deadly threat or not.

The cop who shot a guy holding a wallet ALSO had no way of knowing whether he faced a deadly threat or not. Apparently his blindness to what that man was holding in full view in open daylight WAS deemed as acceptable ignorance to the fact that there was no danger.

In picking up the gun, she faced a deadly threat of her own making. She could reasonably fear the unknown, but she is going to have to sell to a jury that she had a right to aim her gun at the unknown.

She faced a deadly threat no less so than the cop who shot a guy with a wallet. In fact, more so given it happened in her own bedroom.

That is a death sentence.

A blind woman challenging three armed cops to a gunfight is as close as she is going to get to a death sentence. Especially if she has been reported to have been threatening to commit suicide by cop.

You refuse to read. You refuse to grant the same "fear for my life" standard to a blind woman in her own bedroom as you accept for a cop in open daylight on the street.

Admit you have a double standard and I'll consider the conversation closed.

standard to a blind woman

At about 1:37 in the video she shifts her eyes and doesn't appear blind.

If this woman is not legally blind then I would expect the state to argue that with whatever evidence they possess. I am going on the presumption she is telling the truth and that the state will not contest the claim. The only fact I am aware of that is in dispute is whether she pointed a gun at the police. She claimed she did not, the cops claim she did. There are no body cams in this case.

Good Lord, they should have backed off immediately upon finding her asleep in her bed, and very gently called for her attention from a safe distance (outside her bedroom).

Giving this "suicide-by-cop" crazed woman time to arm herself and start shooting?

I reject watchmen

But stalker ex-boyfriends who skulk around a former girlfriend's house seeking to get her harmed...you accept those.

What will the bullet hit if it just misses, or cleanly passes through the intended target?

Who cares? No one is supposed to be in her bedroom -- not family, friends, neighbors, police -- so it's a free-fire zone. This is what her bedroom looks like at night when she hears a noise:

The cops could think their life was in danger too. But they didn't get a search warrant. They were wrong coming in someones home without a warrant.

They were not there to search for evidence of a crime.

https://www.copleyroth.com/criminal-defense/what-is-the-difference-between-an-investigatory-stop-and-a-welfare-check/

Welfare Check

A welfare check, also known as a wellness check, occurs when law enforcement officers respond to a request to check on the safety and well-being of a person. These situations typically arise when an individual is having a hard time getting ahold of a family member, friend, or neighbor and they believe something is wrong with the person. The most common type of welfare check is checking on an elderly person. However, welfare checks can be utilized for a wide variety of reasons, including but not limited to, potential suicide, drug overdose, and child endangerment.

In order to request a welfare check, an individual must first get in contact with law enforcement, whether that be through 911 or a non-emergency number. Prior to contacting law enforcement, an individual must be certain that the person they are concerned about is in danger. If the individual lives in the same area as the person they are concerned about, he or she may accompany authorities to that person’s residence. Additionally, no court order is required for police to conduct a welfare check. As long as the officer has reasonable grounds to believe that an inhabitant in a residence is endangered, they can legally enter the premises. Law enforcement is given this power under the Community Caretaking Doctrine, a judicially created exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment.

Who cares? No one is supposed to be in her bedroom -- not family, friends, neighbors, police -- so it's a free-fire zone.

Well, there’s that. And curiosly the name of the individual claimed to be the boyfriend or ex-boyfriend appears better protected than Eric Chiaramella.

Were the ex-boyfriend’s report to police have been false, he could have been criminally or civilly liable. Using the google, I have not found his name, or any mention of a criminal or civil case.

And there is the natural law right of legally blind people to aim guns at blobs. Denying this right to sighted people who can see what they aim their weapon at is clearly a violation of the Equal Protection clause. Everybody’s bedroom should be a free zone. /sarc (for the benefit of aging juveniles)

But then there is the Community Caretaking Doctrine under which police receiving a call for a welfare check, and having reasonable grounds to believe that an inhabitant in a residence is endangered, can legally enter the premises with not search warrant or court order required.

And the Bobbie Sapp hearing in Orange County Court scheduled for 13 January 2020 has been cancelled.

Orange County Court Hearing Calendar

Case number: 2017-CF-012052-A-O
Hearing date: 01/13/2020 9:00 AM
Time slot: Room 9-a On The 9th Floor
Location: State Of Florida - Vs - Sapp, Bobbie Fischer
Judge: Roche, Renee A
Status: Cancelled