Monday, May 16, 2011

Barnes v. State: Echoes of Fred Sanders?

The Indiana Supreme Court's 3-2 decision in Barnes v. State abrogating a long-standing common law rule that citizens have the right to reasonably resist an unlawful entry into their home by police continues to gain national attention. Fellow blogger Jeff Cox, however, focuses on a real-life Indiana case involving Indianapolis police and a warrantless intrusion into a man's home that left one police officer dead and the homeowner nearly beaten to death. Cox, who considers himself  "second to no one in being tough on crime," sees a frightening parallel in the Barnes decision with the case of Fred Sanders. Here are the facts Cox recites from another blog entry:

In 1988, a Catholic high school teacher, Fred Sanders, didn't always get along with his neighbors. They would often call the police with some sort of complaint, and each time, the complaint would be shown invalid. But it was a kind of harassment he experienced. One time, they called about a dog making racket and so the police, a group of them, came and addressed him while he was outside.

There was a discussion, and already, they were shown to be aggressive. They were already being physically abusive to him. He didn't like it, so he went back to his home, and locked the door. The police didn't like his attitude, so they demanded entry. He asked if he were under arrest or if there were a warrant. The answer to both was no. He told them to go away. They didn't. Instead, when he knew they were going to break down his door, he ran upstairs to get a shotgun. They broke in, and ran up after him. When they saw him with the gun, they started to run -- he, however, was not convinced and was afraid, after being physically assaulted. So he shot out, and hit one of the officers -- killing him! [Note: this officer was Patrolman Matt Faber -- JC.]

He gave himself up.

The other police handcuffed him and basically beat him up -- very very bad. Nearly to death. His eye was out of its socket it was so bad (and never fully healed). He is put on trial for murder, and afraid of the consequence (with a lawyer not helping, and his mother, dying, and afraid he will be put to death, telling him to take pleas) pleads guilty ( I think to manslaughter). But then others hear of the case, and think he was railroaded (should have been legitimate defense of his home/life), and that the police officers, when on trial, lied and were protecting each other as they avoided much of the evidence of what happened. He gets a new lawyer (who also recruited my dad, a law professor, as co-counsel) [Editor's note: The law professor is the late Henry Karlson of IU School of Law--Indianapolis]. The new lawyer can't do much with the conviction. So he launches a suit and criminal charges against the police.
Professor Henry Karlson often recounted this case to his law students. I recall Professor Karlson telling me how angry the police were that he had gotten involved in Fred Sanders' case, the threatening phone calls he received and how he learned that someone had illegally wiretapped his telephone while he was working on the case. Here's a factual summary of what happened in the civil case, which was Sanders' only recourse for justice:

On August 4, 1988, numerous IPD officers, after illegally forcing their way into the home of Fred Sanders and arresting him, savagely beat Sanders after he was handcuffed and subdued, causing Sanders serious bodily injury. The police department covered-up the use of excessive force by the officers in the case. IPD Officer Robert Ward was identified by civilians as one officer who engaged in the beating, and he was later convicted of battery. The federal jury who heard the Sanders case returned a verdict for $1.5 million for Sanders and against the Police and the City of Indianapolis. This sent a powerful message to the police that the community would no longer tolerate such abusive behavior towards Hoosier's as the Defendants' in that case had exercise with impunity against Sanders. Judge Sarah Evans Barker, in one of the more heinous acts of usurpation of citizens' power committed from a federal court bench, reduced this jury award to a mere $77,000.00, thereby condemning Sander's attorney to retry the case no less than three more times on narrower grounds than the first trial court victory.


Cato said...

I wrote a post, but what the hell is there to say, any more?

This system is bankrupt and devoid of any moral authority.

leland35 said...

The version in this thread is substantially different than my own recollection....this case disturbed me as I remember playing baseball against Matt Faber, who was on the Ben Davis team in high school.

I recall that Indianapolis had a heat wave that summer and it was extremely hot & humid. It was a Sunday night and police were stretched thin with very high calls for service. Matt Faber went to check the dog complaint by himself to free up other officers.

Fred Sanders, a neighborhood thug, who weighed in at about 400 lbs of pure fat was threatening his neighbors with his pit bulls. Fred Sanders by my recollection was wearing no shirt and perspiring like fountain...attacked Officer Faber and punched him in the face. Officer Faber called for assistance and struggled with Sanders, who was about 225 lbs heavier than the police officer and full of slippery sweat. Officer Faber by my recollection told him he was under arrest and tried to handcuff him, but Sanders resisted and fled into the house with the Officer in pursuit. As back-up arrived and the officer was chasing Sanders toward the back of the house, Sanders grabbed a shotgun and murdered the police officer, shooting him in the back as he ran.

A substantially different set of the case I recollect, a super heavyweight attacked a police officer, resisted arrest, then went to a house for a gun, and shot the policeman.

Yes, Sanders suffered injuries, as he fought the officers who arrested him.

Sanders was convicted of a felony for his actions.

I was in the courtroom and I sent a letter to the judge prior to sentencing.

Cato said...

In perhaps the most amateurish display of legal hackery, in Barnes, the Supreme Court has applied the 4th Amendment against the citizens, when the entire purpose of the amendment is solely to bind government. The Amendment speaks only to limitations on government, not the citizens.

Imposing duties on citizens would technically have to come through some other amendment and some other rationale than the 4th, since the 4th has no connection to citizen conduct.

We all know judges are just politicians who will say whatever they need to say to get their political aims accomplished, and we all know the law is a shadow of an academic enterprise, where law reviews use five-ton hydraulic presses to try to bend a panoply of conflicting cases into a consistent legal methodology. Let's just be honest about the law, and admit that they have no respect for precedent, judicial restraint, detailed analysis, or any of these myths which they use to self-aggrandize. Let's admit that court is nothing more than a judge doing whatever the hell he wants to take care of himself, his friends and those interests his society expects him to protect.

Recasting the Barnes decision correctly as applying only to the government, the Supreme Court has said that it is not an unreasonable search or seizure for police to search any home, at any time. Warrant, or not, illegal act committed by the citizen, or not, it is reasonable for police to search any house, at any time and to overcome any citizen resistance to the search. This decision utterly erases the 4th Amendment. Utterly. In the wake of Barnes, hat is left for the people to be "secure" from?

When did Indiana courts get repeal power over the Bill of Rights?

I'm just wasting my breath, now. The court wanted to expand police power, and it wanted to eliminate citizen rights. It found a sledgehammer and beat some words onto a page that make no intrinsic or extrinsic sense, but the men with the guns stand ready to enforce the order, so the court is able to pass its legislative agenda, without veto.

God help us all.

Cato said...

Leland, your version made me laugh aloud. Do you expect anyone to buy that load of nonsense? First, you're telling us that he's fat and hot, unshirted, sweating profusely, trying to man the reins on a team of pitbulls. In other words, distracted, exhausted, and far from his peak range of physical and mental operation, given his weight, dogs and the weather.

You completely gloss over how Faber came to be near Sanders, short-cutting all that foundational matter by saying that Sanders punched Faber in the face. One wonders, could Faber not duck a punch from the sweat-drenched obese Sanders? Ah, we're dealing in fiction, so you're supposed to suspend disbelief. Upon being punched, Faber struggles with Sanders but manages to manipulate his radio to call for backup. Octopi yearn for such dexterity.

Faber, "by your recollection" then tells Sanders he was under arrest. Really? You were there? Stop it. You have no recollection of any of this. Faber never left this scene alive to speak to you. You have no recollection. You're making this up.

Still, upon hearing the news he was under arrest, Sanders, the sweating, shirtless, grossly overweight man laboring in the teeth of a heat wave, runs away from a fit officer less than half his weight? Reader, has any of this made sense, thus far? If he had pitbulls, and if they were at all aggressive, they would have been all over the officer by this time in defense of their owner. Ahh, the audience will never notice. Cut to commercial so they'll forget.

In the mere seconds following the notification of arrest and the flight to run into the house, "backup" arrives, as if on Hollywood cue. Sanders, while running, finds a gun in his yard, manages to stop on a dime, turns and fires at Faber who was also able to stop on a dime and had begun running the opposite way.

Amazing is how the slow Sanders was able to get such distance on Faber who, as you said, was, prior to the run, in direct physical contact with Sanders, "trying to handcuff him." Where did the fat Sanders get such speed, and how did the Baseball-playing Faber suddenly lose his?

Yep, just another installment in that pulp comic: Police Report Fantasies.

When we see police reports like this, we all know cops just make *&%@ up.

The fact is that the cops on the scene should be serving life sentences for torture, aggravated battery and attempted murder.

Concerned Taxpayer said...

So, why is it that nobody gets this upset about killing unborn human children?
The courts "found" that language, also.

Advance Indiana said...

I don't know what happened, but it is very telling that a U.S. District court jury, which is typically comprised of pretty conservative jurists, found in favor of Sanders and awarded him that large of a settlement knowing that he shot and killed a police officer during the incident that gave rise to the civil lawsuit. The jury obviously didn't buy the account leland35 describes.


Andy Horning wrote a letter to the Governor asking that the Rule of Law and Constitution be upheld.

You can read his letter here.

You can sign on to his letter by writing to

BigDuke006 said...


Leland35 is closer than you know.

Since someone lost their life that night, I think you would agree that we owe it to that person to be factually accurate. I know because I was on the run.

His neighbors did not like him. Whether it was because he was the only white person living within a two-square mile area, I do not know. I know there was testimony in the wrongful death about his State Farm coverage, that he called the person who called the police a n----r.

On that night, his dog was chasing neighborhood children, in violation of local ordinances. Officer Faber was dispatched after a child was chased onto the roof of a car parked on the street.

Officer Faber responded alone because the officer who was assigned the run with him on this very hot Sunday night (when we were shorthanded) was assisting another officer who was arresting someone about two miles northwest of Sanders' address at 2968 N. Arthington Blvd. Faber volunteered to go alone, because he was simply going to talk to someone about keeping his dog penned up or on a leash.

When Faber arrived, he spoke with Sanders and we can only speculate as to the accuracy of this conversation, since Sanders is the only one to have survived it. Sanders admitted that Faber advised him of the leash law and at that time. (This was when he called Evans a racial slur) He told Faber that he didn’t know the history between them and he should butt out. He then asked Faber if he was under arrest. Faber told him no. At that time he retreated through his front yard toward his house. Faber, not wanting to leave the question of the children's safety up in the air, confronted Sanders again. Sanders, again the only survivor, maintains that Officer Faber at no time said he was under arrest. I am still genuinely curious as to what Sanders would have us believe Faber was up to, if not arresting him at that time. Clearly had he agreed to comply with the ordinance or if not, to at least take receipt of a summons to discuss it with a neutral and detached magistrate, the whole damn thing would have been over and you would never have heard about in Henry’s vacuum on W. New York Street.

Having said that Faber would have been better served to let the fat jerk go into his house and call animal control to come and take his lousy dog. If he really wanted to arrest him, he could go to the same neutral and detached magistrate to get a warrant.

Instead Sanders said Officer Faber attempted to stop him from entering his house. Sanders was about 5'8" and weighed about 300 lbs. Faber was 5'7' and probably weighed about 180 pounds. (I know he weighed 210 lbs when he died, but the medical staff said they had been pumping full of fluids to fight off the infection suffered from the shotgun blast, so that is probably why he weighed so much at his autopsy). It had been about 94 degrees that day and Officer Faber made a very poor tactical decision that it was too hot for a bullet resistant vest. Sanders wore no shirt and was covered in sweat. Officer Faber was unable to apprehend him before he got into his house. Faber was however able to get con't...

BigDuke006 said...

a foot in the door. (On a side note, one of his instructors in the academy foolishly told Faber's class that you should never let someone slam a door in your face, because it shows disrespect. This is probably why Faber made this decision to stop him from closing the door.

A much better idea would have been to retreat to his police car and call for an animal control officer to come and take Sanders' dog and ask for another officer to assist him as he wrote the ordinance violation paperwork to Sanders. (See above)

Instead, the fight was on to keep Sanders from closing the door. A reasonable person (I hope) would agree that Sanders was going to jail that night if it was up to Officer Faber. Sanders instead fought to close the door. Other officers arrived and attempted to open the door. They reached in with batons and CS spray, striking him and spraying him. He eventually had to retreat from his door. He went to the back bedroom and picked up his shotgun and box of shells and checked to make sure it was loaded. Officer Faber fell into the living room, which was waist deep in newspapers and boxes. (See Hoarders on the Discovery Channel for reference) It was described as a maze by the other officers. It was also dark in the room, since the lights were off and it was about 8:45 pm.

Faber did not un-holster his .357 handgun, and instead attempted to retreat to the front door, saying Oh my God and possibly an expletive. Sanders shot Faber about four inches from his spine from a range of about five feet. (The wadding from the shell went inside the wound and was removed by the medical staff)

After Sanders fired, all the officers on the scene un-holstered their weapons and fired at Sanders. He was struck by bullets (I believe in the arm and abdomen).

He then surrendered and was likely beaten by the other officers who just saw their friend shot in the back. If they were John Q. Public, they would never have been prosecuted to the extent that Ward was.

Sanders' life was never in jeopardy. He suffered a broken bone in his leg and a "boxer’s break" to his hand, likely from striking officers at the door. There was even speculation it occurred in the front yard, which would have really thrown Henry’s case into a tailspin. He was treated in the hospital for four days and released.

Fred Sanders was an arrogant jerk and according to some of St. Luke students, a possible psychotic. They were not shocked by the incident with Faber.

Rumor had it that Henry was pissed because he was going to retire early with his payday on this case and take his wife to Florida. I would have been glad to take up a collection if he promised to go.

By the way, I’m no fan of Barker, but please, with a straight face you can say $1.5 million in COMPENSATION? When you get your "facts" from Henry "I'm gonna retire on this one" Karlson, you think like that I guess. That was 90's punitive money and deep down you know it.

Ward not being able to control his emotions after seeing his good friend shot in the back, cost the proper murder prosecution in this case. I don't have to guess about that. I know. That kind of knowledge comes from being at the actual scene and seeing im on a ventilator and seeing the autopsy photos.

But what do I know? With Cato around who needs witnesses?

Advance Indiana said...

Your suggestion, BigDuke, that Henry Karlson only got involved in the case to make money demonstrates just how little you knew the man.

Cato said...

I'm reviewing your narrative.

Duke, 1.5 million seems very light. Barker was dead wrong to mess with that ruling.

The cops tried to beat a man to death. I would not have been shocked to see an award in the billions.

Every cop at the scene should be serving a life term.

leland35 said...


I was not at the scene, but put my honest best recollection of a 20+ year old murder from news reports.

Big Duke, thank you for providing the first hand account! Your perspective is needed in this thread. Oh, pay no attention to Cato. -I believe Cato demonstrates the qualities of a psychopath more and more every day...clearly void of reason. (Look at his statement about "billion dollars" and "tried to beat a man to death"...just what stopped the "attempt"??? Can it be that there never was an "attempt to beat a man to death", for had there been an attempt, what stopped it??? "Billion dollars?" Did that come out of psychopathland or what? Awards are for actual damages, not likely Fat Fred would have shown his net worth at anything close to one million, and he did not have a "total loss" or even any lasting loss. The loss was the loss of life of a good man, Officer Faber.

AI, no offense intended to your friend, Carlson, but: Yes, Henry Carlson lived for media exposure! Every bone in his body and ounce of his blood was spent trying to gain fame/attention in the media. I often wondered if he thought media attention necessary to retain his professorship.

-And now the BIG POINT, stated so well by Big Duke: A good man is dead at the hand of another. A death Big Duke points out very well should have NEVER happened. The Supremes issued a well-thought out ruling. Had the ruling been followed in the Sanders matter, nobody would be dead nor injured, and justice could take its course regarding the arrest...think about it!

The Supremes are correct: Rule by law is better than "might makes right." -And interpretation of law takes time and thought, far more than a split second it takes to pull a trigger.

Cato said...

Leland, the Soviet Union and the Maoists had a practice of categorizing those who disagree with the state as mentally disturbed.

It's a savage and violent tactic of marginalizing a critic as irrational.

Employing the tactic evinces a reflexive willingness to adopt those practices that were the stock-in-trade of the darkest police agencies in history.

You'd have made a great KGB agent, eagerly shipping people off to gulags.

Faber let his ego cloud his judgment, and he attacked a man who tried to stand up for his rights by refusing Faber's intrusions. Sanders fought back an out-of-control armed intruder, and his cop buddies tried to kill him for standing up for his rights.

Karlson was a hero. Barker's conduct was shameful.

BigDuke006 said...


Thank you. I appreciate your kind words. I agree with you about Karlson’s addiction to the media attention.


I invite you to come out and ride with me as many times as you would like. We’ll go anywhere in town on any run that you hear on the radio and you show me the misconduct, you arrogant, uninformed ass.


I do not mean to disparage your relationship with Karlson and I most certainly did not accuse him of taking the case ONLY to get the money. I believe his dislike of local law enforcement was much deeper than that.

I never heard of him until the Sanders case, and then I couldn't not hear about him. His character assassination of officers never ceased. NUVO ran a piece about The “Meridian Street Brawl” and he listed 19 charges they could have faced. One was obstructing traffic. The officers were pedestrians who were on the sidewalk, when two convicted criminals, who knew at least one of the officers from previous arrests, stopped their vehicles in the street. I’m pretty sure they were the ones obstructing traffic.

If one is to interpret Indiana law so broadly, IUPUI police should have been dispatched to Karlson’s class and everyone in attendance arrested for visiting a common nuisance.

You said he thought his phones were tapped. To what end? What would anyone want to hear that Henry Karlson would say on the phone? I’d rather hear paint dry on the phone. He was never suspected of any wrongdoing by anyone that I ever heard of. That is the only good thing I feel comfortable saying about him. I don’t believe he was a criminal. It certainly sounds like he was paranoid though.

I do however know that he told lies. He told a training session of social workers, medical providers and a few police officers that Matt Faber was shot in the side by Fred Sanders in self-defense. I’m absolutely certain he saw the same autopsy photos I did. A metal ruler was placed next to the fatal wound. It showed the distance to the spine and could not have been mistaken. It was literally within a few inches of his spine. I believe in a vigorous defense for anyone accused of a crime, but this was not a courtroom. It was Wishard’s auditorium. There was no reason for this lie. When confronted about it, he said “this is why you cannot trust IPD”.
Cato would have been proud.

In case you think I’m only talking about him because he is no longer with us, rest assured, I argued with him in person every chance I got. I know he had his disciples, but I believe there are a silent majority of lawyers who attended his classes and disagreed with him as much as I did. They just knew to keep their mouths shut about him since he had the local media on his speed dial, and wouldn’t want to incur his wrath. My suspicions are based on some of these same lawyers thanking me for arguing with him.

Advance Indiana said...

Actually, Professor Karlson was generally a strong law and order guy who typically sided with police in many legal disputes. He didn't wear blinders, however, to the reality that police like any human beings are capable of acting very badly at times.

Cato said...

Duke, if I rode with you, I'd insist that our first order of business would be to throw the car keys into the bushes. You could walk around the neighborhood, if you want, but only if you left your gun in the car and took only your radio and a police whistle. In that small way, I'd have made the world a better place, if only for a night.

Your narrative says:

"Instead, the fight was on to keep Sanders from closing the door. A reasonable person (I hope) would agree that Sanders was going to jail that night if it was up to Officer Faber. Sanders instead fought to close the door. Other officers arrived and attempted to open the door. They reached in with batons and CS spray, striking him and spraying him. He eventually had to retreat from his door."

I see.

According to your narrative. Several cops were pushing against the door, and Sanders lost the fight to keep the door closed. At the instant, the very instant, Sanders relented, several cops are immediately inside Sanders' house and atop Sanders. Physics commands no other outcome. Indeed, I wonder whether Physics could prove Sanders, alone, could keep a door closed with those officers pressing against it.

You say that Faber was going to arrest Sanders? For what? Telling a cop to get off your porch is now a jailable offense? I note that your story omits leland's punch of Faber by Sanders. You two need to get together later and harmonize your stories. "Routine police work," I think they call that.

"He went to the back bedroom and picked up his shotgun and box of shells and checked to make sure it was loaded."

Huh? You just said that Sanders was on one side of the door and several cops were on the other. At the very instant Sanders releases his pressure on the door, the cops are inside the house and immediately on top of Sanders. This is physical fact.

Not only that, but Sanders accomplishes this feat of speed and dexterity after enduring baton hits and CS-spray exposure.

Which is it? How are the cops immediately on top of Sanders, but Sanders was able to go across his house, get his gun, check that it was loaded, locate Faber and fire, all after suffering a beating and chemical torture?

Your story is a lie.

"Officer Faber fell into the living room, which was waist deep in newspapers and boxes. (See Hoarders on the Discovery Channel for reference) It was described as a maze by the other officers."

Ah, so Sanders was on the other side of the door from several police officers, but relented, the cops poured in, and Sanders was still able to get across his house, described as a maze, to the back of his house, get a gun, check that it was loaded, locate Faber and fire?

Please. This is Police Report Fantasy.

How come only Faber was shot? Given several police targets that poured into his house, it's more likely Sanders would have shot a cop besides Faber. That die has more than one side.

Cato said...

"It was also dark in the room, since the lights were off and it was about 8:45 pm."

So it's entirely possible Sanders saw Faber make a furtive gesture and fired upon Faber in self defense? No? That's what cops say, all the time, to get away with murder.

Here's what happened, according to the stories you and leland have published: Faber acted alone. He refused to accept being rejected by Sanders and was furious. Faber intruded into Sanders' house against Sanders' wishes. Something occurred within the house, and Faber ended up dead. Other cops arrived and tried to beat Sanders to death, only stopping when paramedics arrived. They then fabricated a story which searches for credibility over 20 years later.

The cops blundered so badly in this case that they escalated an unleashed dog call to a cop death and a citizen attemptedly murdered by police. It really doesn't get more incompetent than that.

Moral of the story: when someone tells you cops to leave, do it. Just move along; accept your place as subordinate to the citizen, and thank us that we employ you.

Got it?

P.S., as soon as Sanders was hit with batons and CS spray, he lost any ability to form a mens rea necessary to commit any crime. He was so pained and distressed that he was acting at the basest level of survival, bereft of conscious thought.

BigDuke006 said...


Fine. Let’s get it out there. What is your life experience that you know anything about anything, let alone a job that I have been doing for 25 years? How many times have you been shot at? Twice for me. Come on; let’s hear your vast experience. How many times were you looking someone in the eye who meant to kill you right then? Three for me. How many times have you held a police officer in your arms as they bled to death? How many? One for me. How many people have you had to shoot? Come on, how many? None for me. How many have you wanted to kill? How many? None for me. How many police officers who have had to kill someone, said that they felt good about it. I know a few officers who have had to do it and they usually say they wouldn’t wish it on their worst enemy.

I hold less contempt for the guy who tried to kill me with an SKS than I do for you. The moron with the .25 was a joke. A little crack from a block away. It meant nothing. I probably could have caught that bullet in my hand. A lot like your dissection of facts of this case.

Since you are obviously working from a 100 level in life experience (your dabbling in psychedelics in college don’t count), let me see if I can fill you in on a few actual events. Matt Faber did not go looking for Fred Sanders. He was called there by Perry Evans. Perry Evans was a tax paying, law abiding citizen. (a superior being, I suppose you would say) He and the people in his neighborhood are what we call in “routine” police work, victims. They asked Officer Faber if he would be so kind as to spend their tax dollars by making sure the racist jerk across the street wouldn’t mind following the same laws everyone else is subject to, so that none of the kids in the neighborhood would get bitten by his dog. Faber’s response was, sure.

That is what he was trying to do. If Sanders had said yes, I will comply with the law, it would have been over right then. Do you dispute this? Instead, Sanders said, “shut up n----r” and then told Faber to mind his own business when Faber told him not to talk to Evans that way. Please don’t gloss over the racist comment. It may be protected speech, but it certainly goes to the character of the person.

Too bad it turned out the way it did, because West New York Street would have been blissfully unaware of what might have transpired. Who knows, maybe you guys could have held a fundraiser instead for Mumia instead of Henry lecturing on renegade IPD officers again, since Mumia was obviously a victim of the corrupt Philly cops who lie “all the time to get away with murder” or the FBI or CIA or someone…I can’t remember. I’ll have to get with Mike Farrell.

Now honestly, do you really think Matt Faber instead went there to hurt Fred Sanders? Seriously, I would like you to respond to that question as well.

If he did go there to hurt Sanders, why did he disregard a very large fellow (corrupt obviously) police officer who could have helped him?

Why didn’t he pull his gun and shoot Sanders?

Why didn’t he take out his baton or CS in the front yard?

Come on, enlighten us.

BigDuke006 said...

OK. Here we go:

“At the instant, the very instant, Sanders relented, several cops are immediately inside Sanders' house and atop Sanders. Physics commands no other outcome. Indeed, I wonder whether Physics could prove Sanders, alone, could keep a door closed with those officers pressing against it.”

Wrong. No one was on top of Sanders. He fled for the bedroom and the gun after letting the door go open. He did not have to get officer off of him, because they fell onto the floor of a house they had never been in before and were tangled in the newspapers and boxes stacked throughout. I’ll type slowly this time to see if it helps you understand it better.

It was his house and he knew how to get through the maze he made. Not by design, but because he was a hoarder. Faber, Knapp and Fender all fell when the door was opened. Faber was after a few moments able to get up and work his way through the debris to pursue Sanders and was immediately in front of Sanders when he re-appeared with the shotgun. Knapp and Fender were still nearer the door trying to get to Sanders. This was probably due to Faber being about 24 and Fender closer to 40, while Knapp was closer to 60 and dying of cancer.

This may come as a complete shock to someone of your vast intellect, but when the shot rang out, Knapp and Fender looked for cover, which in this case was the front door. They un-holstered their guns at some point, (I would assume as soon as the shot rang out), and started to return fire. Amazingly human nature works the same way for everyone, because Sanders also sought cover in his bedroom around the corner. They all figured that out without attending law school. Go figure!

I believe it was Fender who reached in and pulled the now mortally wounded Faber out of the house.

Better brush up on your proofreading. I did not contradict Leland. I said:

“Sanders' life was never in jeopardy. He suffered a broken bone in his leg and a "boxer’s break" to his hand, likely from striking officers at the door. There was even speculation it occurred in the front yard, which would have really thrown Henry’s case into a tailspin. He was treated in the hospital for four days and released”

That’s the cool thing about telling the truth. You don’t have to remember what you said.

I would say your argument about a furtive movement by Faber might have merit, if not for the fact that Faber already had ample opportunity to pull his gun and shoot him. Only the shotgun was added to the equation, which still puts Sanders actions in question.

Really, we say that all the time? What is your definition of all the time? I’m faithful to my wife all the time. Is that how often police lie to get away with murder? How many murders would that require to meet your “all the time” standard?

BigDuke006 said...

You said: “Here's what happened.”

OK. I will fix it for you.

“according to the stories you and leland have published: Faber acted alone.”

Yes. Faber refused backup, thinking it wasn’t needed. He “acted” alone.

“He refused to accept being rejected by Sanders and was furious.”

Who testified that he was furious? Sanders didn’t. Evans didn’t. They were there. Why would you say he was?

“Faber intruded into Sanders' house against Sanders' wishes.”

Fresh pursuit? Unless you are still clinging to the unanswered question as to whether Faber meant to arrest him.

“Something occurred within the house, and Faber ended up dead. Other cops arrived…”

They were there already and yes something happened, a murder.

“…and tried to beat Sanders to death, only stopping when paramedics arrived.”

I don’t believe medics were there for several minutes after apprehension. I know the first ambulance took Faber. The second one took Sanders. Those cads.

“The cops blundered so badly in this case that they escalated an unleashed dog call to a cop death and a citizen attemptedly murdered by police. It really doesn't get more incompetent than that.”

Attemptedly? I don’t think that’s a word. The dog call is on tape. Called in by Evans in advance. On analog tape. (really old tape, not the cool digital kind you can change).
“Moral of the story: when someone tells you cops to leave, do it. Just move along; accept your place as subordinate to the citizen, and thank us that we employ you.”

See Evans calling police for help at the beginning of this post. You call Sanders a citizen. We called him a suspect, until he was charged. Then defendant until he PLED GUILTY. Then prisoner while he served his sentence.

“As soon as Sanders was hit with batons and CS spray, he lost any ability to form a mens rea necessary to commit any crime. He was so pained and distressed that he was acting at the basest level of survival, bereft of conscious thought”


mphill109 said...

Big Duke, just let it go. People like cato know all and the police are never right...until someone wrongs him...then we cant get there quick enough. Just goes to show you whoever coined the phrase "damned if you do, damned if you dont" was a cop!!!!

SW Lane said...

Let it go Duke. Cato is intellectually and factually bankrut, not to mention a coward. I believe he is an American, it's certainly his right to be an anarchist, wishing violence on the police in general. He knows that it's ok to bash an individual police officer who is deceased, and he would never threaten an individual living officer by name..because the gutless anonymity he enjoys would vanish, and he'd be confronted by a team of police..and he'd urinate down his leg and squeal like a 3 year old girl.

Paul K. Ogden said...

Sorry, I'm just now seeing this. I am very amused by Leland and BigDuke's creative memories. I also find it interesting in their
obsession with Sanders' weight.

I was in Indy at the time and remember the incident well. The officers came out to Sanders residence to talk to him aobut a complaint of a barking dog. Sanders talked to the officers outside with no satisifaction. Sanders asked if he was under arrest and they said no. So he went back into his house rather than continue the conversation, which is Sanders' right to do. The officers furious, came to Sanders' door and demanded that he open it so they could talk to them. When Sanders refused, they began breaking down the door. Sanders retrieved a shotgun and shot Officer Faber. Right before the gunshot Faber turned so he actually got shot in the back.

Faber and the other officer acted like out-of-control idiots and I don't blame Sanders one bit for thinking he needed to defend himself and his property. While I don't wish anyone to be shot, Faber's reckless and illegal conduct was the chief factor in his getting shot.

As I recall, there was never any question whether Sanders was under arrest (he wasn't) or if Faber acted properly (he clearly didn't.) What was a major source of contention was Faber getting shot in the back instead of the front. The shooting in the back suggests Faber saw the gun and the illegal entry was being repelled and therefore there shooting him was unreasonable force. That's an arguable point. (Unlike Leland and BigDuke's creative facts and arguments.)

I agree with AI, the notion that Henry Karlson took the case to make money is laughable.

Cato said...

Duke, get a final version of the facts, then we can have a discussion. The way your laughable story is going, we're going to have Frankenstein and Godzilla making appearances to shore up the gaping holes in that installment of Police Report Fantasies.

You don't even know you're making a joke of yourself. In response to my dissection of your fable, you reiterated a physically untenable position:

"Wrong. No one was on top of Sanders. He fled for the bedroom and the gun after letting the door go open. He did not have to get officer off of him, because they fell onto the floor of a house they had never been in before and were tangled in the newspapers and boxes stacked throughout."

Man, you don't get how comical your story is. According to you, a bunch of cops are pushing on the door. Sanders releases his pressure on the door. Ever heard of Isaac Newton? As soon as Sanders relents, the door flies open, and those cops slam into Sanders on the other side of the door. We can reenact this. It's easy. There is no time for Sanders to release a door then run and get his gun.

Unless, of course, Sanders closed the door, ran and got his gun, and the cops broke it down, ran in and unexpectedly met a man defending his home from armed criminal intruders.

Why am I explaining this to you, again? I already told you once that you were lying.

The cops overreacted and let their egos run wild. One cop died for his ego. The cops tried to kill Sanders over their ego. The City should have paid millions for that cop ego.

Stop having ego, and start knowing your subordinate place. When you're dismissed by a citizen, say "Yes Sir, Sir!" and make a proper 'bout face and double-time it away from the citizen.

There's a reason why that fairy tale lost in court and convinced no intelligent person.

Cato said...

SW's attitude is so typical and revealing. It doesn't matter whether cops are right or wrong; what matters is that someone dares criticize them, and that person is a target for police retaliation.

Note how he or she all but refers to the police as an army, acting in unison to attack anyone who opposes them.

"he'd be confronted by a team of police"

Mind you, this team/army is responding to a fictional event SW dreamt up and penned to find a way for his mind to craft some form of revenge. That's not healthy behavior. These guys are really freaking scary.

Oh, and if you look at the condition of the engagement, why is it cowards only like to attack when they have superior numbers or superior force? Andy Taylor didn't wear a gun, but then again, he also didn't receive surplus tanks, flamethrowers and APCs from DoD and DHS.

Cops, they have a-changed.

Still, the image SW conjures of a polyester-clad hit squad glistening with costume jewelry, roaming the streets in search of citizens to intimidate and vanquish is really pretty funny. Scary, but mostly funny. In SW's comic book, he has, perhaps accidentally, cast the cops as the arch villian.

I wonder whether psychoanalysis would reveal that SW and his ilk have a completely inverted system of right and wrong and the relationship of the citizen to the state?

leland35 said...

Cato: Have you taken your medication?

-That said I will give you a final answer to one of your many false assertions, when you say "there's a reason why that fairy tale lost in court."

Said so well by The Judge in the case: "Although the precise course and rationale of the jury's deliberations remain beyond the Court's actual knowing, it is obvious that the jury's results are SO DETACHED from the CONTROLLING LEGAL PRINCIPLES AND THE EVIDENCE presented that the Court has virtually no choice but to make the ruling it has in this entry made. Regrettably from everyone's perspective, the JURORS TURNED TO THEIR OWN INSTINCTS for guidance, and the result is a verdict motivated by VENGANCE, passion, or benevolence -- a VERDICT CLEARLY BEYONE THEIR LAWFUL COMMISSION AND CHARTER."

In other words the jury made a random whim of a decision without evidence or legal justification, much like Cato's posts. And it was struck down!

mphill109 said...

Watch over us Matt...

BigDuke006 said...

You should read all the posts before commenting. You and Cato are supposed to be lawyers right? Why don't you just read the transcripts from the civil cases and Sanders criminal hearings. Is your post supposed to be representative of what you would do for court? Underwhelming.
As for the weight issue, it is germane to the question of Faber's inability to subdue him in the front yard. You really are an attorney, aren't you?

I was not only on the run, but also in the courtroom and the testimony was that it happened exactly that way. Sanders agreed. Why can't you?

Sanders decided he couldn't get Faber's foot out of the door and he couldn't keep them from opening it much longer, so he retreated to the bedroom. He opened the door and they fell in on the floor. If you or Sir Isaac have a problem with that, take it up with Sanders.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day and you are right about the overreaction of police. Faber should have just backed off. I thought we were all clear on that. Instead, he followed the training he was given, (which in this case was wrong and he was too young and new to know.) But that is what he was told to do, not let him close the door.

That is what police and military do. Follow their training. That is why 99.9999% of police work ends well and goes unnoticed by the hermetically sealed ivory tower. We use experience from previous experience to not repeat errors.
You two have no concept of what it is like to be called to a run that might end your life. You Monday morning quarterback your way through life. SW lane and mphill109 do know what it is like and deserve respect for it.

You get the rest of your miserable little insignificant life to dissect what a more selfless person tried to do to help keep some kids safe from a racist ass who meant them harm and thought them less than human.

If you didn't demonstate such an outrageous lack of knowledge about the case I would suspect you of being Sanders. Why else would you so obviously ignore his racist comments and behavior.

He was the bad guy, not Faber. You can argue illegal forced entry all you want and I'll tell you he killed the only person who could have challenged it with fresh pursuit.

I know that Matt Faber was a hero for what he tried to do and he will vilified forever for how it ended. The victor writes the history (through Karlson in the law school) and Goldsmith got his Catholic vote, and Faber was just dead with your ignorant ass dancing on his grave. That's life in the real world, not your silly little vacuum. Just keep telling yourself that you matter Cato. I doubt anyone else will tell you that.

Cato said...

Duke, you were on the run? Did you also participate in the attempted murder?

And you still can't seem to get a grasp on the law. "Fresh pursuit" only applies if a crime has been committed. Telling a cop to buzz off is not a crime, so Faber and the other cops entered the house illegally.

"That is what police and military do. Follow their training."

Unsatisfactory. The police need to follow right and wrong. Attempting to shift accountability to a classroom is not tolerated by a free people.

"If you didn't demonstate such an outrageous lack of knowledge about the case I would suspect you of being Sanders. Why else would you so obviously ignore his racist comments and behavior."

Because, like the rest of your obfuscations and misdirections, it's irrelevant to the only issue that matters: did the cops enter Sanders' home illegally, and did Sanders have a right to defend himself from the malevolent armed invaders?

"He [Sanders] was the bad guy, not Faber."

No, Faber was the bad guy, as he was in a man's home without permission.

"You two have no concept of what it is like to be called to a run that might end your life."

If a dog call has the potential to end life, we really need to find better people with calmer tempers to do this job. If we took your guns away, your egos might come down a few pegs.

Bottom line: Sanders taught you a lesson about freedom, that night. In order to freedom to reign, that lesson needs to be understood by every agent of every government.

Michael said...

Right and wrong or legal or illegal? A free people pay taxes, and expect that their officers are properly trained to enforce the law. This is a nation of laws, is it not? Right and wrong don’t get you too far in court. I thought you were an attorney.

I really enjoy an attorney not wanting to be bothered with facts. Anyone who thinks he has all the answers probably has none.

Facts are stubborn things. I only know what I saw with my own eyes, read from statements of people who were there, and heard them say it themselves, under oath.

What do you have? The undying knowledge that you know better, even though you were four years old at the time.

The disorderly conduct arrest which was occurring in the front yard trumps all of your conjecture. It is unfortunate that Goldsmith did not have the courage to try the case. Without question, there were always skeptics, but it was a winnable case.

Goldsmith’s running for mayor and away from angering the archdiocese turned the tide against the department in criminal court and the city in civil court.

The only lesson Sanders taught was in prison to some poor illiterates. I believe that was his job there. Remember, he was the one who PLED GUILTY.

As is usually the case, this wasn’t about a dog. It was about a racist ass that could not be told what to do (sounds a lot like Barnes), and a police officer who was arresting him to insure the safety of the children in the neighborhood by removing him and his dog.

You know, I might be able to get the case files from the archives. If I can, you and Ogden could look them over. You could get the transcripts from criminal and civil courts and then you might be able to draw a reasonable conclusion. Maybe then you could explain why you are defending this murdering racist piece of filth.

You just keep coming back with your blathering innuendo and I'll be right here, telling you the facts of this incident.

You obviously have no first hand knowledge of this case and Ogden "lived in Indianapolis" making him an expert.

Just keep shooting your little .25 from a safe distance, out of the glare of scrutiny. Those of us who go out and work in the real world with real consequences will enlighten you, while you vegetate in your mom's basement.

Michael said...

I really thought you were gone, but since you came back with the same BS, I guess you've got nowhere else to go.

Even Sanders had the common sense to realize he is a pariah and just go away. He disappeared years ago. I know he used to go downtown and stand on the corner of Market and Delaware to see who might recognize him or whatever weird motivation he had.

Why don't you track him down and discuss your admiration for him. Fred Sanders as folk hero. That doesn't seem to resonate, now does it. Seriously, you should write an editorial in the Star.

He's probably sitting around in a white robe with a pointy hat and nothing to do. He'd probably enjoy your company. Since you won't address his overt racism, I'm sure you would enjoy his too.

Since you asked, and I actually was there, I will answer your accusations.

I volunteered for the run from 13th and Pennsylvania, which was where my beat assignment was, on the old Adam Sector. This incident occurred on Boy Sector. I did not make it to the scene before Faber’s ambulance was already gone and Sander’s was just leaving. Since I was a rookie, and had never worked Boy Sector, I incorrectly assumed 10th Street was the fastest route. I was wrong.

If by “attempt murder” you mean the disorderly conduct and resisting arrest resulting in the shooting in the back of a police officer…which in turn resulted in the ass beating of a murderer…the answer is no.

I have spoken to a lot of officers about it over the years, and I wish I had been there during the apprehension. I would have tried to shield his voluminous ass from the obviously very angry officers. If cooler heads had prevailed, I’m sure he would have been taken into custody without unnecessary injuries. A jury, seeing Sanders with two bullet wounds inflicted after he had shot Faber in the back, would not have been so quick to believe that he wasn’t just being arrested. Sanders would have had to convince a jury that he shot Faber in the back to defend himself against potential injuries. I guess it goes without saying that you agree with this premise.

The officer’s response was to the shooting, not to the dogs. If you really believe that what happened to him after the shooting is what he would have gotten if he just gave up, you are just not a serious person. He would have been handcuffed and sent to lockup for DOC. End of story. Cato has nothing to amuse himself with 23 years later. You are a sickening ghoul.

For the record, I believe it was Detective Sergeant Steven West who asked an intubated Faber in the Wishard Memorial Hospital Intensive Care Unit if Sanders was under arrest. Blinking twice, Faber confirmed that he was arresting Sanders. So this dying declaration would indicate the entry was legal.

Michael said...

Only the second half of my post got through and the name michael attached. it should have bee from BigDuke006 and after the one that started with I really thought...

Just fyi, if you can put them in the right order I would appreciate it.


SW Lane said...

Gary, I don't blame you for any misinformed comments about this situation-you weren't here at the time, and probably havent read the whole story, archived in Superior Court Records.

Ogden, You disappoint me. You lapped up all the buzzwords like "ourageous conduct", "illegal behavior", etc without any independant thought or verification. You lost ALL credibility when you said "officers" when you described the initial confrontation with Sanders. There was only 1-Faber. More on that later.

Cato, the violent, sociopathic tendancies you ascribe to the Police? Look in the mirror. Most of the violent comments and your opinions on the poice in general are more psychotic than any cop I have ever known, with the exception of Myron Powell. I believe the psychological term is "projection".

I knew Matt Faber only briefly, and rode with him the night before he was shot. We took several runs in the Brightwood area. He impressed me with his diplomacy..I mean hey, when you are 5'6 and maybe 150, you cant be anything BUT diplomatic when resolving conflicts. That's what always bothered me about this: The fact that the initial events leading up to the shooting were of a 1-sided informant-Sanders. And he had nothing to gain by being honest.

The definition of police brutality is when the police forgo their professionalism and act LIKE ANYONE ELSE WOULD, given a situation. Seeing your friend shot in the back was the catalyst. The officers were punished-one fired, one taken off the street forever, and so forth. But to say Faber was wrong? Hell no, and this whole rehashing has led me to delete several Facebook "friends" who are brainless parrots. So be it.

Rest in Peace, Matt.

Alecia said...

It is easy to pontificate 23 years later on a horrific event. I did not live in Indy at the time, but I took Henry-The-K's class. One can defend themselves and their homes with reasonable force; however, deadly force can be used to defend one's self if there is a fear of serious bodily injury. Serious bodily injury is defined, in part, as extreme pain (like a broken bone) or unconciousness. Simply reading the thread, I am unclear if Sanders's hand and/or leg were broken at the door before the shooting or after the death of Faber. Also of note, I have no idea what the law regarding the Castle Doctrine and self defense was in 1988. I simply am curious as to your opinions regarding to that.

It seems, as Karlson suggested, that self defense may have been appropriate; however, that would turn on whether or not Sanders was under arrest in his yard. Obviously, this point is important to the equation and there are two different stories. I question a disorderly conduct arrest simply because one would think witnesses(neighbors) would have been present to say that Sanders was out of control in his front yard after being told by Faber to quiet down. Maybe there were witnesses; again, I am just asking and I am curious.

One thing I can comment on regarding Karlson is this: the man was a breath of fresh (conservative/libertarian) air in an extremely liberal institution. I believe the man, a vet himself, truly cared for individual rights and feared an over-powering government. I mean no disrespect to a group of officers who lost and/or saw a comrade perish in the line of duty, and it is admittedly easy to dissect a case in class using the law. I admit that I share suspicions with Cato after seeing police elaboration regarding PCAs as both a prosecutor and a defense attorney; I also admit that I believe that a man's home is indeed his castle and nobody, government entity or otherwise, has the right to enter without a warrant. I whole-heartedly disagree with police entry into Barnes's home after establishing that the complaining witness is okay. Most officers I speak with regarding this matter agree that the ruling it too invasive, but I write from an extremely conservative county. I am curious of your opinions and am curious if the officers believe that unfettered entry into a home is a good idea.

Michael said...

The only breath of fresh air I detect is your post. In comparing it to the mindlessness of Cato and the carelessness of Ogden, I can only wonder where you came from.
Since you are soliciting opinion, I will throw mine in. I obviously disagree with some of my compatriots about whether it was wise to enter the home instead of retreating and calling for animal control. As you say, it is easy to do with the benefit of hindsight. Your experience with Karlson is much different from mine. If we are to believe this vision of the “over-powering government” in this case, we should look at two issues.
1. We did not go looking for Fred Sanders. Trust me, it is unanimous, we wish we would have never heard of him. It was a very hot Sunday night and no one was looking for anything at shift change. We worked very short on Sundays anyway and especially in August when most vacations were scheduled. We were called there by Perry Evans. He and a child were victims of Fred Sanders and his lack of control of his dog. Would anyone, including Karlson deny this?
2. Faber went there alone. He was dramatically smaller than Sanders, yet declined the assistance of a much larger officer, who would have made a front yard arrest easier. Kennedy’s presence would have probably convinced Sanders that he should stay in the front yard because he wasn’t going to be able to handle both officers. (Call this intimidation if you wish)
Did we have many more resources we could have sent? Yes. Did Faber ask for anything until after the complete lack of assurances that the neighborhood would be safe after Faber left? No.
Would Karlson have been receptive to that kind of thought in the classroom? If he allowed for all points of view in this case to be debated openly it would really surprise me. I don’t recall him ever giving Faber the benefit of the doubt in any way. Whether it was a good arrest or not could be debated, but denying the possible existence of an arrest is irrational. Death seems a hefty penalty for a disagreement over probable cause though.

Alecia said...

I absolutely agree that death is far too much of a penalty to pay for what is essentially a probable cause argument, and I totally understand the law enforcement point of view. My issue is that by agreeing with this notion, I feel that I am agreeing with the Supreme Court's ruling in Barnes, which I absolutely do not. Barnes talks about the protection of police and citizens with their ruling However, I do not agree with shredding 500 years of jurisprudence to reasonably defend against intruders, threats, and illegal entries by the State. I guess then the question becomes one of reasonableness (I hate lawyers). At least in the Barnes case there was a reasonable response (a shove, and a holding of the door, I believe), and the State would still have the issue of whether or not the entry was illegal via exigent circumstances. Maybe police should err on the side of caution and call a detached Magistrate before making an entry. I mean, what's the harm in waiting a few minutes to attempt a warrant? What do you think?

To me, this incident was an extreme incident of reasonably resisting unlawful entry. I know there is no concession that the entry was unlawful, and there was no concession that Sanders's response was reasonable. I think you are right that if he was not beaten half to death afterward then the State would have obtained a murder conviction as the defense would not have been able to say that blasting an officer in the back was a reasonable response to an entry into the home (lawful or unlawful). The harshness of what I believe a homeowner/citizen should be able to reasonably do comes out in this case, as an officer was unfortunately killed. I still believe a citizen should have a right to resist an unlawful entry by the State within reason, and I believe that it is okay to firmly believe in this right and still concede that the Sanders case would have turned on reasonableness and disputed "facts" that were never tried to a criminal jury. I guess I am simply reconciling these two issues: 1) that I believe nobody should be killed over a probable cause dispute and 2) that citizens should be able to defend themselves from State agents (and in absolutely extreme cases...use deadly force).

My memories of Karlson do reflect a one-sided presentation of the story back in 2004. He liked to describe how Sanders's eye was beat out of his eye socket. I don't recall many details as to why the police were called, but simply that it was, at most, an ordinance call. He did not think highly of the IPD and talked about death threats he had received. Nobody in the class seemed to know enough about the facts, but I would have been happy to see an open dialogue on the subject. I think his view on the over-powering government echoes mine in that the King of England (originally) nor the President of the United States shall not enter my hovel without a warrant. Notwithstanding the Sanders case, many here could probably agree with that. Coming from a law school that I thought as a Land of Liberals, it was refreshing to have Karlson's conservative point-of-view. I appreciate everyone's input and thoughts on the subject. I think it would make an excellent book allowing all point-of-views to be heard, including the fallen.

Michael said...

That spinning sound you hear is Henry rolling over in his grave at high speed upon reading your first sentence. It has become clear to me that the review of the enforcement of the law has become a Rorschach test. Even the Clantons are lionized today as misunderstood victims. I know that I wasn’t there and have no first hand knowledge of the gun fight at the OK corral, but I’m sure Cato has some “wisdom” about the incident, since he was as much there as he was on Arthington.

Henry can give his version of the account, hiding the parts that don’t fit his narrative, while the dead guy’s family has to listen to Henry’s disciples assassinate his character for the rest of their lives. By the way, they moved out of state and took his body with them. Good move on their part, since this unthankful city doesn’t deserve his presence. That shitty little strip of grass on E. Washington Street was a slap in the face. They should have told Peterson to stick it.

I had the same unease about the Supreme Court's ruling in Barnes, but for different reasons. The rise in police impersonations and home invasions makes me very uneasy about the courts telling an UNSUSPECTING PUBLIC to succumb to anyone who forces their door open while wearing anything that looks like a police uniform.

Barnes and Sanders were far from unsuspecting. They were SUSPECTS. Henry could like that or not, but they were. We know because 911 calls from victims told us so. The officers were lawfully there and were asking legitimate questions to solve tangible problems. No one questioned the legitimacy of the police presence. In both cases, bullies who had threatened others, one even calling the victim a racial epithet, retreated after unsuccessfully trying to intimidate their victims. They both tried to escape responsibility. Sanders had the obligation to keep his animal from endangering children. Is this not in the interest of both the state and the victims? Barnes grabbed a phone from his wife and placed her in fear for her safety. No legitimate interest there either? Both thought they were above the law.

While I agree that shredding 500 years of jurisprudence to reasonably defend against intruders, threats, and illegal entries by the State, I believe both these cases show that one man’s will to disregard the law for his own reasons should not be grounds for retreating from that law.

Michael said...

Reasonableness was never Henry’s long suit. It was his way or the f-ing highway. As a former student, would you not agree? Henry and dissent, now there is an odd couple. I wonder how Henry would have handled a Barnes or a Sander given that both did not like what they were told. I’m sure Cato would say that Henry was far too intelligent to have ever been a police officer, while AI and Ogden would wax about Henry sitting with the aggrieved parties in a long white robe distributing his Solomon like wisdom and clearing up the whole misunderstanding lickety-split. I’ve got bad news for you, Henry had no answers. He had judgments. Lots of them. No plan for how it could have been resolved. Maybe he would have agreed with Cato would argue Faber should not have come at all. Who cares if the child is bitten? Better poor Fred not be bothered in his castle.

I believe it would have been reasonable for Sanders to have satisfied the state that he wasn’t going to allow his f-ing dog to eat the kid next door. I further believe it would have been reasonable for Barnes to show the state that he meant his wife no harm, since she called the state for that very reason. It is absolutely mindboggling that complainants are so quickly disposed of when a defense or civil attorney shows up. Your reflection on the story proves he didn’t bother with the small matter of why we were there in the first place.

If it took a “few minutes” to get a warrant it would be no problem to get them. However, in the real world, it would take a significant amount of time to get from the scene to the court, fill out the paperwork, go in front of the judge, answer any questions they may have, get the necessary cause number from the court staff, make copies and return to the scene.

I never said he was beaten half to death. I saw him that night, live and in person at Wishard. Did Henry? His eye was not out of socket. That is bull. He had a black eye. I recall the only reason he was admitted to the hospital was for the gunshots he received after shooting Faber in the back. He got an asswhipping from a distraught friend. As I said, I believe he regrets it now. Testosterone and adrenaline are hard to control when you are dealing with strangers, try it with a good friend.

I believe a citizen should have a right to resist an unlawful entry by the State within reason as well. Unfortunately, a reasonable person rarely lets a dog attack children or threaten his wife. Reason was not in abundance with either Sanders or Barnes. “An over-powering government” was the only thing that stopped either of these Neanderthals from further victimizing the complainants. That is how it works. Those who abjure violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf.

Roman said...

I sure would like to know who the students were that hated Fred. I graduated with his last 4th grade class he taught there. From what I recall everyone loved the guy. If fact, I have an old 8th grade graduation photo with him. The students invited him to come to the graduation when they heard he was released.

Michael said...

Pete [unverified] said:
Weirdly enough, Fred Sanders was actually my fourth grade teacher. Unlike basically everyone else from my parish community, I wasn't at all surprised at his actions that night.

2009-05-22 09:57:38
Tell The Truth [Member] said:
Yeah, Pete...Fred was an odd duck But he didn't deserve his fate. No one does.

2009-05-22 13:38:15
i like cheese [Member] said:

Man, we must have led parallel lives. I went to St. Luke for 2 years; 5th and 6th grade, so I just missed Fred. But my overwhelming impression of him was that he was psychotic. The stories of him ripping up phone books in front of the class and breaking desks? He screamed at me, at the top of his friggin' lungs, for pounding on a locked door. It was winter, I was locked outside, and I was trying to get into the school.

I can't say I was surprised at what happened to Fred. The guy really had anger issues. That's not to imply he deserved it. And the cop certainly didn't deserve it either. I think my point is that if you are the police, you can't escalate a situation as your first course of action. It doesn't matter that officer Walters is a nice guy and maybe he was having a bad day. When you carry a gun and are entitled to use deadly force, you don't _get_ to have a bad day.
2009-05-22 15:09:45
Pete [unverified] said:
Good to see we're in agreement about the Fred Sanders situation. Neither he nor the cop deserved their fates, but both of them consciously made choices to escalate the situation, and the cop had even less excuse to do so.

I sort of pegged Sanders as possibly being not the best role model for children when he would feed rats to his boa constrictor during recess. Or maybe it was the time he showed up to school with a black eye. Man, St. Luke was a seriously dysfunctional place.
2009-05-22 15:58:16
i like cheese [Member] said:
God, St. Luke. How I hated, hated, hated that place. If there ever was a place with a bigger concentration of dickheads, I haven't found it.
2009-05-22 17:20:48
Tell The Truth [Member] said:
Wow. St. Luke, the physician saint....heal thyself, huh?
2009-05-23 09:30:24

Ant Noa + Unky Dave said...

Real late on this post, but would like to say:

@SW Lane - Maybe it would be the fact that "a team" of cops would come to meet someone ready to stand against cops who would use the power that the people allow them as a venue to boost their egos. One-on-One or Team-against-Team, I think you'd get quite a few takers.

Unfortunately, that's probably how officer Faber got killed: he kept his attitude up when he answered a call against someone who was willing to take him on.

As was stated, neither Faber nor Sanders deserved getting what they got. It's not too common that someone is willing to stand up to cops when they act out of line. Unfortunately, it IS too common that cops act out of line with people, and overstep their legal rights to get their way. That is the whole issue here. Unfortunately a good man got killed, and apparently his fellow police did not learn the lesson to be learned. Instead they learned only tactical lessons...which is helpful and proper when dealing with those purely evil individuals in society. The trick for the cop is, to make sure that, even if it is a greater danger to himself, he should always be distinguishable from the evil ones, and never compromise the founding principles of our society. If anyone has ever dealt with our legal system, they may have been told that a certain amount of injustice they must put up with is simply the price we must pay for a free society. Such ideas as it being better to allow 10 guilty to go free if it were to mean putting one innocent in too, the police have their prices they must pay as their part in justice for all. After all, it IS a job, and one they choose to work. In doing so, they should be prepared to pay the price required to operate within the founding principles and spirit of the laws. Those officers who do are truely brave and admirable Officers. Those who don't are cowardly, bastard traitors, and need to be reigned in by civilians if necessary.

I don't know the truth in this story. Those who were there may or may not. If they do, they know whether or not they are heroes and paid the ultimate price, or if they are cowardly scum, traitors to the people and all their oaths, and should be in the prisons they sent their most evil captives.

Walter Zoomie said...

Tell it to Jose Guerena.
Tell it to Officer Jared Francom.

Al said...

A vintage song about Fred Sanders:

Anonymous said...

Something that is always left out of every Fred Sanders/Officer Faber story retelling is that the Prosecutor, Stephen Goldsmith, was going for the death penalty. However, Wishard Hospital ICU chart review showed that after several in-patient days, Officer Faber was improving, he suddenly got worse, started to run a fever, and showed signs of lung infection. He went downhill fast and then died. During the early days of his fever spike, the pharmacy did a consult and recommended a change of antibiotics. The order was never picked up and enacted; the antibiotic was never changed to one that showed promise by culture and sensitivity to be effective against the new pathogen. The infection got worse until Officer Faber died. It was this discovery of nursing error that took the case out of the death penalty realm.