View Full Version : no-knock in Georgia
platoonDaddy
10-04-14, 09:48
Hopefully there is more to this story, I am not a fan of no-knock.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/10/cops-kill-georgia-grandpa-in-no-knock-raid-triggered-by-burglary-suspects-tip/#.VC7BIis53s4.twitter
http://www.13wmaz.com/story/news/local/dublin/2014/10/01/warrant-meth-raid-led-to-fatal-laurens-shooting/16538903/
http://www.policemisconduct.net/the-david-hooks-case/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Policemisconductnet+%28PoliceMisconduct.net%29
FromMyColdDeadHand
10-04-14, 11:09
Money or 20grams of meth? How much money did he think was in the bag?
Somethings not right here. The deceased either isn't a drug dealer, or the best in the county and was sold out.
A hammer only sees nails.
maybe the Police who shot should face murder charges and the judge 2nd degree who OK the warrant
and hope the dept gets sued for millions and millions and millions and drains them and all involved are in jail !
and they are not allowed to do any no knock warrants again EVER
this crap is getting out of hand
I can't believe how stupid authorities are getting !!!! reminds me of those on street interviews with people that know so little about common sense things
this is INSANE they would take a tip from a burglar who broke into the house ? and maybe just arrest the burglar instead of taking orders !!!!!
Deputies were executing a search warrant as part of a drug investigation based on a tip from one of the burglars accused of stealing a vehicle from Hooks
Averageman
10-04-14, 12:31
Tragic and a waste.
There should be prison time for those involved. Another failure of the War on Drugs.
Mauser KAR98K
10-04-14, 13:37
I thought SCOTUS ruled no-knocks are a no-no?
NCPatrolAR
10-04-14, 14:43
Money or 20grams of meth? How much money did he think was in the bag?
Somethings not right here. The deceased either isn't a drug dealer, or the best in the county and was sold out.
A hammer only sees nails.
I'm curious about the prior break-in mentioned in the story. Was that reported to police? Did this, along with the car theft, prompt the guy to move his inventory?
Also; did the suspect in the car theft have a history with the guy?
Moose-Knuckle
10-04-14, 15:00
By God they got their man . . . they really showed him!
Maybe the burglar wanted to "deal" with an investigator(s) eyeing a promotion who needed a bust so he made shit up with the hope of getting the charge dropped . . .
NCPatrolAR
10-04-14, 15:16
Maybe the burglar wanted to "deal" with an investigator(s) eyeing a promotion who needed a bust so he made shit up with the hope of getting the charge dropped . . .
How does that play into him turning himself in?
How does that play into him turning himself in?
That's the really odd part that doesn't quite fit the puzzle... Why would he turn himself in and now face a bunch of charges? Too many days chasing the dragon, paranoid delusions and seeing shadow rats?
and I bet he was caught breaking in before and he was told to get out at gun point by grandpa at one time and thought HEY I can have the cops come back to this guys house for me !
simply no excuse once you have had your home broken into you never feel the same safety ! the perp should have the same fate life long reminder !
tattoo there face THIEF and make sure they can never ever get any kinda gov assistance as long as they live and if caught a second time execution
By God they got their man . . . they really showed him!
Maybe the burglar wanted to "deal" with an investigator(s) eyeing a promotion who needed a bust so he made shit up with the hope of getting the charge dropped . . .
its about like us wanting to break in and steal from someones home
you should know sometimes punks are stupid ? maybe he thought coming forward and telling would get him a get out of jail free :)
How does that play into him turning himself in?
The informant's statement that was printed in the third link does not pass the smell test.
"The facts submitted to Deputy Magistrate Snell to convince her that probable cause existed to issue the warrant consisted of the statement by Rodney Garrett a confessed burglar, thief, and a meth addict who was under the influence at the time of his arrest that the approximately 20 grams of methamphetamine, a digital scale, and 2 firearms found on him at the time of arrest had been stolen by him out of another vehicle at the Hooks home."
If that is in fact the information provided by the informant after he was arrested, it causes me a great deal of concern. Was there fresh corroboration of the facts provided in his statement? What further information and evidence was gathered? Was there meth making materials in the trash of the deceased homeowner? Do they have receipts that prove he purchased meth making materials from local stores in recent past?
The SWAT team serves search warrants and takes safety precautions based on information provided by the investigators. The onus is on the people who conducted and supervised the investigation.
If the information we have so far is in fact true, this case requires close scrutiny.
Moose-Knuckle
10-04-14, 16:26
How does that play into him turning himself in?
We have subjects turn their selves in from time to time after an investigator assigned to their case notifies them if it’s an at large offense. Once they do a detective will generally question them provided they do not invoke their right to council. It’s not out of the realm of possibilities that the burglar made a deal to rat and be CI.
platoonDaddy
10-04-14, 16:40
I realize this info is from the attorney of the family, so please educate me:
Is it legal for a Deputy Magistrate to issue a warrant? Faith Snell a non-attorney Deputy Magistrate of the Laurens County Magistrate Court.
The family attorney is claiming the warrant is invalid, is it because of the time or a Deputy Magistrate? Armed with an invalid search warrant and with less than an hour of preparation, at approximately 10:55 p.m
Does a warrant require a no-knock clause? Despite the fact that the illegal search warrant did not have a “no knock” clause
http://www.policemisconduct.net/the-david-hooks-case/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Policemisconductnet+%28PoliceMisconduct.net%29
JBecker 72
10-04-14, 16:57
"Yeah I stole the car, but the meth ain't mine officer". :rolleyes:
That's pretty thin for a warrant to be issued, given the source. Does anyone have a link to the actual warrant.
NCPatrolAR
10-04-14, 20:06
That's pretty thin for a warrant to be issued, given the source. Does anyone have a link to the actual warrant.
THis was my next question.
One of the news stories said that they had seen the warrant, so supposedly its out there flaoting around somewhere.
NCPatrolAR
10-04-14, 20:09
Is it legal for a Deputy Magistrate to issue a warrant? Faith Snell a non-attorney Deputy Magistrate of the Laurens County Magistrate Court.
Not sure what a deputy magistrate is. Here; the vast majority of our warrants are approved by a magistrate.
The family attorney is claiming the warrant is invalid, is it because of the time or a Deputy Magistrate? Armed with an invalid search warrant and with less than an hour of preparation, at approximately 10:55 p.m
YOu'd have to see what his actual arguement is. I doubt the time the warrant was gained could be viewed as a factor making it invalid since you dont have to serve it the moment you get it.
Does a warrant require a no-knock clause? Despite the fact that the illegal search warrant did not have a “no knock” clause
A bigger issue is determing if it was an actual no knock service. Think one of the articles said the team conducted a knock and announce.
Eurodriver
10-05-14, 05:58
The SWAT team serves search warrants and takes safety precautions based on information provided by the investigators. The onus is on the people who conducted and supervised the investigation.
If the information we have so far is in fact true, this case requires close scrutiny.
And that's the confusing part. If I were a SWAT guy and knew I was going to face armed, law abiding citizens unaware that I am LE doing a no knock I would be clamoring for more scrutiny. A drug dealer might surrender when a team enters his house - after all he knows it's the cops. A law abiding father with an AR thinking his family is in danger is going to take out as many home invaders as he can.
Yet, in almost all cases, they seem to be a fan of no knocks.
Yet, in almost all cases, they seem to be a fan of no knocks.
When you say "most cases", is that based off the interviews you've conducted with said personnel? Information gained by way of personal relationship with said personnel? Or is it just an assumption?
I'll be completely honest here, I don't give two shits want ANY media outlet reports when it comes to ANYTHING law enforcement does. After seeing the story that first broke on "ferguson Missouri".....its pretty clear to me that the media is simply out for the sensationalist story.
I'd wait until the FACTS come out after an investigation.
Hopefully there is more to this story, I am not a fan of no-knock.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/10/cops-kill-georgia-grandpa-in-no-knock-raid-triggered-by-burglary-suspects-tip/#.VC7BIis53s4.twitter
http://www.13wmaz.com/story/news/local/dublin/2014/10/01/warrant-meth-raid-led-to-fatal-laurens-shooting/16538903/
http://www.policemisconduct.net/the-david-hooks-case/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Policemisconductnet+%28PoliceMisconduct.net%29
No knocks should be conducted as an absolute last resort. This is getting way out of hand. A hardened, known felon with a history of violence is one thing. Sounds like investigators completely dropped the ball. They're the ones that should be fired and imprisoned. SWAT is just their hammer.
And that's the confusing part. If I were a SWAT guy and knew I was going to face armed, law abiding citizens unaware that I am LE doing a no knock I would be clamoring for more scrutiny. A drug dealer might surrender when a team enters his house - after all he knows it's the cops. A law abiding father with an AR thinking his family is in danger is going to take out as many home invaders as he can.
Yet, in almost all cases, they seem to be a fan of no knocks.
This is why no knock search warrants are very difficult to obtain in my area. When they are issued, a lot of steps are taken to ensure SWAT has good information before they assist with service of the warrant.
I would like to read the affidavit submitted with the search warrant application.
Eurodriver
10-05-14, 07:39
When you say "most cases", is that based off the interviews you've conducted with said personnel? Information gained by way of personal relationship with said personnel?
I'm confused. If you were asking how I could speak for a majority of LEOs in the entire country, obviously I can't. But you don't appear to be asking that. From your tone, you seem to imply it is somehow impossible for me to have many many friends (and relatives) in local LE. And that if I did, they aren't SWAT.
Well I do, and they are. And to a man they all love no knocks because they feel it makes their job safer. Luckily the investigators here do their work and judges rarely sign off on no knocks anyway.
FromMyColdDeadHand
10-05-14, 10:11
This is why no knock search warrants are very difficult to obtain in my area. When they are issued, a lot of steps are taken to ensure SWAT has good information before they assist with service of the warrant.
I would like to read the affidavit submitted with the search warrant application.
Didn't I read that this was a wasn't a no-knock, but if a 'knock' warrant is yelling as you swing back the battering ram, what is the real difference?
Knock-knock!
Who's there?
BAMMM!
It's like the Wal-Mart shooting. Sure they gave him commands, but since the guy was innocent and distracted, he didn't even know they were talking to him. Add in that the lack of time from commands to kill shot and you end up with the wrong dead guys.
Criminals and the guilty are the only ones who know how to act right from experience and forethought. It's the innocent among us that get whacked.
So let's say this guy is a hardened criminal mastermind and a drug kingpin. If he knows the cops are coming, why meet them with force when you know there is nothing in the house? Keep watching TV and let them make fools of themselves. Why fight the cops when you have scrubbed your house clean? What is readily apparent is that the homeowner didn't think it was cops.
I'm not saying the guy isn't a drug dealer. Obviously someone is after the guy - or else he is incredibly unlucky to be the subject of two accusations. Maybe a competitor SWATing him to get him out of the way? Maybe a disgruntled ex-worker?
No knock is the theme of this thread. Based on the information in the posted links, I cannot tell if it was or was not a no knock warrant.
When serving a search warrant, seconds count. Delays can cause loss of evidence and more importantly loss of life. If after knocking on the door officers hear noise from inside a residence indicating people are scrambling, leading them to believe weapons are being grabbed or evidence is being destroyed, they are going to enter the residence. You always have to take into consideration that a homeowner may respond to noise in their residence with a firearm in hand.
People have a valid point about a criminal having experience with search warrants and how to act. Some criminals have made up their mind they are not going back to prison and they are going to fight.
Is there information that explains the rush to acquire and serve the search warrant? Has anyone found any information indicating whether or not the deceased had a criminal history?
NCPatrolAR
10-05-14, 11:35
Another question to ponder is how was the team dressed and how many were present? The wife supposedly saw people in camo at the back door and alerted her husband. Could this be another Pima AZ situation (where you have fully uniformed officers doing a knock service where the wife sees them and alerts the husband who grabs a firearm based off the spouse's actions)?
FromMyColdDeadHand
10-05-14, 11:35
No knock is the theme of this thread. Based on the information in the posted links, I cannot tell if it was or was not a no knock warrant.
When serving a search warrant, seconds count. Delays can cause loss of evidence and more importantly loss of life. If after knocking on the door officers hear noise from inside a residence indicating people are scrambling, leading them to believe weapons are being grabbed or evidence is being destroyed, they are going to enter the residence. You always have to take into consideration that a homeowner may respond to noise in their residence with a firearm in hand.
Or they could be coming to open the door? Or a dog is scrambling around? So basically, any warrant become a no-knock or knock-bang.
Once again, can we please take the ninja/SF-wear away from the cops? It serves very little actual camouflage purpose and just muddles the issue. I know we have talked about it ad nauseum.
People have a valid point about a criminal having experience with search warrants and how to act. Some criminals have made up their mind they are not going back to prison and they are going to fight.
But his house was clean? He goes thru all the trouble to flush his house and then decides to shoot cops, which he never actually shot. Worst cop shooting in history. Far more likely he thought it was a home invasion and was waiting until they got inside. Why wait to shoot cops till they come in?
Or they could be coming to open the door? Or a dog is scrambling around? So basically, any warrant become a no-knock or knock-bang.
...No...
Once again, can we please take the ninja/SF-wear away from the cops? It serves very little actual camouflage purpose and just muddles the issue. I know we have talked about it ad nauseum.
Sure. We will give them orange reflective vests to wear in the PA forest as they look for that guy with the rifle.
Woodland operations are actually a frequent occurrence for many LE agencies.
FromMyColdDeadHand
10-05-14, 14:11
...No...
Why not? Are you saying that this never happens? Sure, someone yelling "Flush the DRUGS!" is a pretty good clue, anything else is open to interpretation and therefore abuse.
???Yes???
FromMyColdDeadHand
10-05-14, 14:24
Sure. We will give them orange reflective vests to wear in the PA forest as they look for that guy with the rifle.
Woodland operations are actually a frequent occurrence for many LE agencies.
For some, on some calls, yes. The vast majority of people in the US live in Urban environments and and overwhelming amount of the violent crime is or near cities centers. Stop dressing for the unicorn hunt. Maybe if we made SWAT teams dress like ballerinas running SWAT calls will be less cool. That is until Crye comes out with the tactical Tutu.
Eurodriver
10-05-14, 14:26
...No...
Well then, what's the point of knocking at all if you're going to kick the door in anyway?
Well then, what's the point of knocking at all if you're going to kick the door in anyway?
To follow the guidelines and parameters of the search warrant. How long you wait depends on the circumstances.
We still don't know everything the entry team was told at the briefing. Unless you are actually standing at the door hearing and seeing what is going on both inside and outside the building, it is very difficult to intelligently second guess an entry team.
It is a huge responsibility to obtain and serve a search warrant with the assistance of SWAT. It would be interesting to read what else the informant told the investigators and if there was more than one source. It would also be interesting to know what the crime scene services people and investigator saw when they were at the home investigating the burglary in the days before the search warrant was obtained and served.
The 44 hours the investigators were inside the house was overplayed by the media. It was the scene of a homicide investigation after the shooting occurred and 44 hours is not an unreasonable amount of time to secure a scene.
When serving a search warrant, seconds count. Delays can cause loss of evidence and more importantly loss of life.
No amount of evidence is worth someone's life, an officer's or a citizen's. If it's so little that it can be flushed it ain't worth squat and they didn't do much of an investigation prior to the raid.
I have several friends who are police officers who refuse to go on drug raids for this very reason. Risk VS reward.
Yet another seemingly sad story of police stupidity. Hopefully we will get our hands on some more facts so that we can actually come to somewhat fact based conclusion.
IMO events like these are NOT related to equipment or SWAT teams or any other physical thing. They are rooted in the mentality of the people using them. Until we address that we are pissing into the wind.
For this specific case; why would anyone sign off on a life threatening warrant on information gathered for a criminal high on meth. If this is true, then that community is beyond hope until they wholesale fire the folks they entrusted with their safety. After getting this wonderful piece of information from a criminal, junkie apparently high did ANYONE run ha ground on the family at said residence to see if there was any history there?? I'm no cop, but I can state with 100% certainty that I would have done some research on that front. Maybe I'm naive and all, but how often do clean cut individuals outside of Hollywierd go from happy go lucky to drug kingpin?? Hopefully there was some history there that warranted something more than an investigation like a SWAT raid. I also have to wonder how much thinking the SWAT teams do when presented with these warrants. Do they just blindly follow the paperwork and risk the lives of their members on the word of a junkie?
I can already imagine the finger pointing at the press conference if we find out that these people had no criminal history and got dead based on the word of a junkie.
NCPatrolAR
10-05-14, 19:51
After getting this wonderful piece of information from a criminal, junkie apparently high did ANYONE run ha ground on the family at said residence to see if there was any history there?? I'm no cop, but I can state with 100% certainty that I would have done some research on that front. Maybe I'm naive and all, but how often do clean cut individuals outside of Hollywierd go from happy go lucky to drug kingpin??
FRom one of the news stories:
In the warrant application, Laurens investigator Chris Brewer wrote that he knew Hooks and his home address from a previous investigation. Brewer said a suspect claimed he had been supplying "multiple ounces" of methamphetamine to Hooks, who re-sold it.
ForTehNguyen
10-05-14, 20:01
heavy police response due to the unsubstantiated tip from a caller or tipper with zero checking? Sounds awfully like the Walmart shooting. Heck this is worse because the thief was under the influence during his arrest but lets trust his tip and conduct a no knock warrant based on it. What shithead judge signs a search warrant based on this type of info from a meth head of all people?
On Wednesday, September 24th at 9:56 p.m., drug task force agent Chris Brewer made application for a search warrant before Faith Snell a non-attorney Deputy Magistrate of the Laurens County Magistrate Court. The facts submitted to Deputy Magistrate Snell to convince her that probable cause existed to issue the warrant consisted of the statement by Rodney Garrett a confessed burglar, thief, and a meth addict who was under the influence at the time of his arrest that the approximately 20 grams of methamphetamine, a digital scale, and 2 firearms found on him at the time of arrest had been stolen by him out of another vehicle at the Hooks home. Investigator Brewer also stated information he claimed came from an investigation involving Jeff Frazier. That investigation was in August 2009 over 5 years ago. A search warrant was issued at 9:56 p.m. by Judge Snell. This search warrant is invalid on its face as it does not comport with the requirements of the Constitution of State of Georgia nor the United States Constitution. Armed with an invalid search warrant and with less than an hour of preparation, at approximately 10:55 p.m. several members of the Drug Task Force and the Laurens County Sheriff’s Response Team arrived at David and Teresa Hooks home unannounced by emergency lights or sirens. There is no question the Officers were aware the home had been burglarized only two nights earlier
David and Teresa were under the impression that the burglars were back and that a home invasion was eminent. David armed himself to protect his wife and his home. Despite the fact that the illegal search warrant did not have a “no knock” clause the Drug Task Force and SRT members broke down the back door of the family’s home and entered firing in excess of 16 shots. These shots were from multiple firearms and from both 40 caliber handguns and assault rifles. Several shots were fired through a blind wall at David with the shooters not knowing who or what was on the other side of the wall. The trajectory of the shots, coupled with the number of shots infers a clear intent on behalf of the shooters to kill David Hooks.
Averageman
10-05-14, 21:48
I had an ex Step Son that was hooked on Meth.
The kid would kick the back door off the house three or four times a year and steal everything inside. We put him in rehab 3 times and it finally worked, but I still wouldn't trust him or let him in my home.
The stuff is pure poison as much as I hate the drug I still wouldn't trust someone using it to tell me anything believable.
Taking this scum bags word for anything is useless or worse, this is crimminal.
I had an ex Step Son that was hooked on Meth.
The kid would kick the back door off the house three or four times a year and steal everything inside. We put him in rehab 3 times and it finally worked, but I still wouldn't trust him or let him in my home.
The stuff is pure poison as much as I hate the drug I still wouldn't trust someone using it to tell me anything believable.
Taking this scum bags word for anything is useless or worse, this is criminal.
Meth is a powerful drug. One of the shootings I investigated involved a suspect under the influence of methamphetamine and he could not be stopped with pistols or carbines. The third responding officer ran over him with a pickup truck, which was the only thing that would stop him.
We still don't have specific information about Hooks. Don't get caught up on him being a business owner, clean cut or living in a nice house. One of the biggest meth cells we took down in our area involved a successful businessman who lived in a nice neighborhood.
Once the lion's share of information concerning this case becomes available, we will have a better idea of what occurred and why. If the police screwed up, let the chips fall where they may.
Whiskey_Bravo
10-05-14, 22:21
That is until Crye comes out with the tactical Tutu.
I would totally buy my wife one.
I don't care if the guy had an underground river of meth going under his house. The only time a No Knock should be allowed is when there is a specific danger to the officers or persons inside. Preserving evidence isn't worth any life.
There was another shooting in TX similar to the one earlier this year, in which the defendant received a No Bill. From what I read, no drugs were found and the info came from an informant.
http://www.kwtx.com/ourtown/home/headlines/Killeen--Prosecutor-Will-Seek-Death-Penalty-In-Police-Officers-Death-274000421.html
It still baffles me that information can be received and so little fact checking. Just like the mayor of Berwyn Heights and countless other situations.
I don't care if the guy had an underground river of meth going under his house. The only time a No Knock should be allowed is when there is a specific danger to the officers or persons inside. Preserving evidence isn't worth any life.
I agree.
zero contraband, zero shots fired on behalf of the legal residents, but its ok for them to shot the guy 16 times..... and not one person has even been suspended or fired.... this country is doomed.
NCPatrolAR
10-06-14, 06:03
zero contraband, zero shots fired on behalf of the legal residents, but its ok for them to shot the guy 16 times..... and not one person has even been suspended or fired.... this country is doomed.
What should they be suspended or fired for at this point?
Eurodriver
10-06-14, 06:25
What should they be suspended or fired for at this point?
....manslaughter?
That you even have to ask that is mind boggling. I bet if that man, acting in the same good faith as those officers, took a few police out it would be a closed case in your book. Murder of an LEO. First degree, right?
Seriously, at what point does an LEO killing somebody innocent result in a call for criminal prosecution?
ETA: My beef isn't with the officers that actually shot this guy, but the higher ups that made a BS call to serve a warrant on a meth addicts testimony. Let's see a few Captains and Chiefs or detectives - hell, let's see the JUDGE who signed the warrant criminally indicted. That will stop this shit in a hurry
Voodoo_Man
10-06-14, 07:06
Just to point out the obvious, none of those swat guys had anything to do with the investigation. They only knew what they were told by another officer/investigator. (This is how it works in most places)
Calling for them to be fired or arrested is pretty short sighted.
platoonDaddy
10-06-14, 07:17
With all the LEO's on this thread, I would think someone would be able to locate the affidavit submitted with the search warrant application and the search warrant. Aren't they available through a public or LEO state database?
Voodoo_Man
10-06-14, 07:36
With all the LEO's on this thread, I would think someone would be able to locate the affidavit submitted with the search warrant application and the search warrant. Aren't they available through a public or LEO state database?
Might be, depending on a few factors.
FromMyColdDeadHand
10-06-14, 08:33
It still baffles me that information can be received and so little fact checking. Just like the mayor of Berwyn Heights and countless other situations.
All the rules, procedures, laws and constitutional protections related to reasonable suspicion, probably cause and evidence provenance and chain of custody that stop the cops from willy-nilly searching you on a hunch and all that pretty much gets thrown out the window if a tweaker, who gained the information illegally walks in the police station door and starts blabbing some tale. I know there is a judge involved, but an assistant, sub-prefect, part-time paralegal can sign all that away protections? How are they publicly accountable, or even visible?
There were probably hundreds of SWAT raids that day, more than a few based on similar circumstances, and they all go down just fine- or at least didn't make the news. I'm not saying that we need to change the system wholesale, but it does seem that we need to tweak the system- either thru procedures or ramifications for shoddy work and bad outcomes. It seems 'SWATing' is getting more common, so issues like these will become more commonplace.
Granted, the guy smells funny, but that is a reason to get rid of a carton of milk, not a suspect.
The SWAT guys are culpable? Maybe if they were more on the line for bad busts based on bad info, they'd kick back more of these fishing expeditions.
With all the LEO's on this thread, I would think someone would be able to locate the affidavit submitted with the search warrant application and the search warrant. Aren't they available through a public or LEO state database?
The problem we have in this day and age is that people expect access to information instantly. That is not going to happen in a proper criminal investigation.
If LEO had access to information through a LEO database and they provided it to someone who was not authorized access, they would be charged with a felony in my area.
Patience.
Just to point out the obvious, none of those swat guys had anything to do with the investigation. They only knew what they were told by another officer/investigator. (This is how it works in most places)
Calling for them to be fired or arrested is pretty short sighted.
While tend to understand this logic, where does the buck stop and the finger pointing circle jerk end. If I act on bad information from my wife that burglars are in my home and kill a cop do I get a pass or am I responsible for the round I sent down range into a person who didn't need killing?
Maybe the SWAT teams should stop and think instead of just following orderes.
At every turn not a single person is accountable for his actions. The SWAT team points the finger at the detective and sais we were just following orders. The detective points the finger at the judge. He signed the order I just dot aha I was told to do. The judge points the finger at a stack of idiotic rulings saying what he did was legal. Nothing happens and a person who didn't need killing at that time is still dead. All for the sake a a few ounces of shit. Sad state of affairs is an understatement. Needless to say I will be seriously surprised if anything happens to any of the officers involved.
montanadave
10-06-14, 09:14
What a cluster****. And I agree with TAZ's comments above. There will be the inevitable investigatory circle-jerk, possibly a civil suit with a payoff contingent on the family of the deceased keeping mouths shut, and no one will be held accountable for what appears to be, at least from the evidence available to date, a case of kicking in the door of a man's home in the middle of the night and shooting him dead with no justification.
Voodoo_Man
10-06-14, 09:27
While tend to understand this logic, where does the buck stop and the finger pointing circle jerk end. If I act on bad information from my wife that burglars are in my home and kill a cop do I get a pass or am I responsible for the round I sent down range into a person who didn't need killing?
Maybe the SWAT teams should stop and think instead of just following orderes.
At every turn not a single person is accountable for his actions. The SWAT team points the finger at the detective and sais we were just following orders. The detective points the finger at the judge. He signed the order I just dot aha I was told to do. The judge points the finger at a stack of idiotic rulings saying what he did was legal. Nothing happens and a person who didn't need killing at that time is still dead. All for the sake a a few ounces of shit. Sad state of affairs is an understatement. Needless to say I will be seriously surprised if anything happens to any of the officers involved.
The investigators are culpable, they have the burden to investigate and make a "case" they then pass that warrant, once signed, to a team to serve it.
Attacking swat officers is extremely short sighted, they do not question thw orders unless obviously wrong. They receive paperwork says this guy has a warrant for a crime (among other circumstances) and tht he may or may not be armed. How is the swat team supposed to know the details of the investigation? This isn't hollywood, that rarely, if ever, occurs.
Judges do what they are legally allowed to do. Nothing more, sometimes less, want to see then prosecuted for thier actions? Elect someone who will push that type of legislation.
The investigators are the problems, the push for closed cases, for warrants for arrests. For every one good investigator there are four that should never have got that job. My experience, may not reflect yours or others.
The investigators are the problems, the push for closed cases, for warrants for arrests. For every one good investigator there are four that should never have got that job. My experience, may not reflect yours or others.
A layman's observation after speaking with a few in the know... Narcotics officers tend to be a huge part of the problem when it comes to raids like this. Reason being is that their jobs are tied to finding the "evidence" and officer and citizen safety gets thrown out the window due to them foaming at the mouth to make their case.
Another huge problem is the fact that police departments receive a huge amount of funding from the federal government, the National Drug Control Budget amongst others, and they need to show big drug busts in order to receive those dollars.
Seized drug assets also pay a huge chunk of PD's budget issues so there is additional incentive there, think forfeiture law stuff, like stealing people's money, cars, houses without due process.
I think a lot of it comes down to money at the expense of the officers and citizens involved. Disposable pawns in a failed war on drugs.
What about the SWAT team firing blindly through walls? A No Knock does not grant them the privilege to shoot willy Nilly in the house, does it? Perhaps this would have turned out OK if they had identified the subjects first.
Voodoo_Man
10-06-14, 10:55
A layman's observation after speaking with a few in the know... Narcotics officers tend to be a huge part of the problem when it comes to raids like this. Reason being is that their jobs are tied to finding the "evidence" and officer and citizen safety gets thrown out the window due to them foaming at the mouth to make their case.
Another huge problem is the fact that police departments receive a huge amount of funding from the federal government, the National Drug Control Budget amongst others, and they need to show big drug busts in order to receive those dollars.
Seized drug assets also pay a huge chunk of PD's budget issues so there is additional incentive there, think forfeiture law stuff, like stealing people's money, cars, houses without due process.
I think a lot of it comes down to money at the expense of the officers and citizens involved. Disposable pawns in a failed war on drugs.
I cannot say that seizures are something PDs thrive off, we do not do that at all. If we seize something we dont use it.
I worked narc for a bit and have never seen this funding, only federal agents brought money with them to work cases, otherwise we didnt get anything.
I have also never seen the pressure to make a case but I was not exactly an investigator on every case.
What about the SWAT team firing blindly through walls? A No Knock does not grant them the privilege to shoot willy Nilly in the house, does it? Perhaps this would have turned out OK if they had identified the subjects first.
When the teams get issued xray goggles we can have this conversation.
The investigators are culpable, they have the burden to investigate and make a "case" they then pass that warrant, once signed, to a team to serve it.
Attacking swat officers is extremely short sighted, they do not question thw orders unless obviously wrong. They receive paperwork says this guy has a warrant for a crime (among other circumstances) and tht he may or may not be armed. How is the swat team supposed to know the details of the investigation? This isn't hollywood, that rarely, if ever, occurs.
Judges do what they are legally allowed to do. Nothing more, sometimes less, want to see then prosecuted for thier actions? Elect someone who will push that type of legislation.
The investigators are the problems, the push for closed cases, for warrants for arrests. For every one good investigator there are four that should never have got that job. My experience, may not reflect yours or others.
I remember hearing a bunch of German soldiers saying the same thing at Nuremburg several years ago. Was it OK for them to BLINDLY follow orders? I think we know how that worked out for them.
Now let's look at it in a little different light. A No Knock is issued and this time it is not some construction guy, it is a highly trained individual that has several of his friends over. The entry team is rendered safe and once they go outside they see it is the police. They did not know it was the police and the judge did not inform them of the "legal" warrent. If nothing is found on the search have they broken any laws?
The point is, one of the biggest safety that LEOs have is BEING AN LEO. That if it is a mistake law abiding citizens and a lot of criminals will not fight back if it is the police. That is why no knocks and having a bunch of guys running around the woods is not a good idea.
Attacking swat officers is extremely short sighted, they do not question thw orders unless obviously wrong. They receive paperwork says this guy has a warrant for a crime (among other circumstances) and tht he may or may not be armed. How is the swat team supposed to know the details of the investigation?
Killing and alienating the people you're entrusted with protecting for the sake of a few ounces of crap is OK, but asking that officers use their brain cells is short sighted??? Really?!
How is a SWAT team supposed to know the details of an investigation you ask. How about asking questions and asking to see the investigative paper trail? Unless a call comes in that someone is in imminent danger at said address there is no need rush about without asking questions and reviewing information for accuracy. Why is that too much to ask for?
While I agree with you that the investigator who takes short cuts and makes bad decisions should bare the majority of the burden of a bad raid, I still feel that all involved should answer to a degree. When you escalate a situation to lethal force levels all involved should check and double check the facts to insure the escalation of force is warranted. NOBODY should be blindly following orders.
skijunkie55
10-06-14, 11:33
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/radley-balko/myths-and-misconceptions-_b_1596846.html
Interesting read somewhat related to this topic on new legislation that was passed in Indiana. Not that it would help this situation as the homeowner was shot and killed, but in the event a home owner isn't in the morgue, they can argue self defense instead of immediately being charged with killing a cop.
The Castle Doctrine law says that if someone has entered or is attempting to enter your home without your consent, you're legally permitted to use a reasonable amount of force to expel the intruder from your residence. If you reasonably believe your life or members of your family are in danger, you can use lethal force. The revision to Indiana's law simply states that public servants aren't exempt from such treatment.
Indiana residents must (a) reasonably believe the public servant is attempting to enter their home illegally and (b) use no more force than is reasonably necessary to dispel the threat to their lives or property.
So Hoosiers can't use any force if the public servant isn't a threat and can't use lethal force unless there's good reason to believe the intruding police officer presents an immediate and significant threat to the safety of those inside.
The amendment's main effect on drug raid cases will be that if someone is by mistake considered a suspect -- and if in the confusion and volatility of the moment he mistakenly shoots and kills a police officer -- he'll now be permitted to argue in court that a reasonable person in the same position could easily have made the same mistake.
Knocking down someone's door at 11pm without announcing yourself would qualify as an illegal entry IMO.
Voodoo_Man
10-06-14, 11:43
Killing and alienating the people you're entrusted with protecting for the sake of a few ounces of crap is OK, but asking that officers use their brain cells is short sighted??? Really?!
How is a SWAT team supposed to know the details of an investigation you ask. How about asking questions and asking to see the investigative paper trail? Unless a call comes in that someone is in imminent danger at said address there is no need rush about without asking questions and reviewing information for accuracy. Why is that too much to ask for?
While I agree with you that the investigator who takes short cuts and makes bad decisions should bare the majority of the burden of a bad raid, I still feel that all involved should answer to a degree. When you escalate a situation to lethal force levels all involved should check and double check the facts to insure the escalation of force is warranted. NOBODY should be blindly following orders.
Dont know what you are getting all up in arms for. This is how it is and if you do not like it become a police chief and change it. Become a lawyer and sue for it. Be a politician and push legislation to change the warrant process or vote a politician into office who will.
Most of the things ive posted here arent opinions, they are facts as I have experienced them, some PDs may differ.
If you do not like it, do not get upset at the person educating, or attempting to anyway. Be upset at those need that type of attention. Getting angry over something like this is not going to change it.
NCPatrolAR
10-06-14, 11:47
With all the LEO's on this thread, I would think someone would be able to locate the affidavit submitted with the search warrant application and the search warrant. Aren't they available through a public or LEO state database?
You already have one news station reporting that they have a copy of it. Seems like if it was incredibly damning of the police; they would have already posted it online.
NCPatrolAR
10-06-14, 12:01
....manslaughter?
That you even have to ask that is mind boggling. I bet if that man, acting in the same good faith as those officers, took a few police out it would be a closed case in your book. Murder of an LEO. First degree, right?
Seriously, at what point does an LEO killing somebody innocent result in a call for criminal prosecution?
ETA: My beef isn't with the officers that actually shot this guy, but the higher ups that made a BS call to serve a warrant on a meth addicts testimony. Let's see a few Captains and Chiefs or detectives - hell, let's see the JUDGE who signed the warrant criminally indicted. That will stop this shit in a hurry
First - you seem to have a habit of rushing to judgement and condemning officers based off a handful of articles that primarily cite info from the homicide victim's attorney as their base of fact.
Two - why would an agency fire/suspend officers for manslaughter if the elements for the offense aren't present yet. Based off of the article (which is a dangerous way to form an opinion) you have the entry team saying they conducting a knock and announcement and engaged the victim when he appeared with a weapon (and acted aggressively iirc). So, if they are able to articulate this when speaking with homicide investigators and Internal Affairs (our practice here for OIS investigations) then no; they aren't going to be immediately fired/suspended. I think several are on an admin type leave though (likely the actual officers that fired, but that's also standard).
Since you're trying to play the double standard card; I'd be just as curious as to what happened had some officers been injured/killed. Anytime a story hits the news that sounds off (such as this one), there tends to be more to the story and I have zero issues putting blame where it needs to be. But blame gets placed after the facts are in not when reading a statement from an attorney.
skijunkie55
10-06-14, 12:12
First - you seem to have a habit of rushing to judgement and condemning officers based off a handful of articles that primarily cite info from the homicide victim's attorney as their base of fact.
Two - why would an agency fire/suspend officers for manslaughter if the elements for the offense aren't present yet. Based off of the article (which is a dangerous way to form an opinion) you have the entry team saying they conducting a knock and announcement and engaged the victim when he appeared with a weapon (and acted aggressively iirc). So, if they are able to articulate this when speaking with homicide investigators and Internal Affairs (our practice here for OIS investigations) then no; they aren't going to be immediately fired/suspended. I think several are on an admin type leave though (likely the actual officers that fired, but that's also standard).
Since you're trying to play the double standard card; I'd be just as curious as to what happened had some officers been injured/killed. Anytime a story hits the news that sounds off (such as this one), there tends to be more to the story and I have zero issues putting blame where it needs to be. But blame gets placed after the facts are in not when reading a statement from an attorney.
Why can't PD's who are engaged in these kinds of operations just wear a Go-Pro so their ass is covered? Is that too much common sense? If there was actual proof i guess there wouldn't be need for lawyers to make thousands off the ensuing legal battle, no union reps, no IA investigations, no he said / she said antics that cost the tax payer thousands of dollars... In this day and age with the technology we have there should never be two sides to a story like this.
First - you seem to have a habit of rushing to judgement and condemning officers based off a handful of articles that primarily cite info from the homicide victim's attorney as their base of fact.
Two - why would an agency fire/suspend officers for manslaughter if the elements for the offense aren't present yet. Based off of the article (which is a dangerous way to form an opinion) you have the entry team saying they conducting a knock and announcement and engaged the victim when he appeared with a weapon (and acted aggressively iirc). So, if they are able to articulate this when speaking with homicide investigators and Internal Affairs (our practice here for OIS investigations) then no; they aren't going to be immediately fired/suspended. I think several are on an admin type leave though (likely the actual officers that fired, but that's also standard).
Since you're trying to play the double standard card; I'd be just as curious as to what happened had some officers been injured/killed. Anytime a story hits the news that sounds off (such as this one), there tends to be more to the story and I have zero issues putting blame where it needs to be. But blame gets placed after the facts are in not when reading a statement from an attorney.
But wasn't there just recently a story like this in the news? A no knock warrant issued on a marine vets home. He had a rifle and was trying to protect his family from what he thought was a burglary and was shot and killed by the raid team for just holding his rifle, he never fired a shot... Yet they gunned him down.. And after finding out they had the wrong house (morons) they ended up being sued for "a lot of money".
Same situation, minus the wrong address part. But no contraband was discovered in either case. So it parallels.
NCPatrolAR
10-06-14, 12:37
Why can't PD's who are engaged in these kinds of operations just wear a Go-Pro so their ass is covered? Is that too much common sense? If there was actual proof i guess there wouldn't be need for lawyers to make thousands off the ensuing legal battle, no union reps, no IA investigations, no he said / she said antics that cost the tax payer thousands of dollars... In this day and age with the technology we have there should never be two sides to a story like this.
Some agencies do have cameras; some even use car cameras to cover different angles
However; cameras don't stop all of the attorney posturing, IA investigations, etc.
I cannot say that seizures are something PDs thrive off, we do not do that at all. If we seize something we dont use it.
If you'd like I will provide links to numerous sources stating that many PD's do in fact obtain large amounts of their budgetary money through seizure. (I don't know a better way to state this and it's not meant as confrontational, if it comes off that way.)
I worked narc for a bit and have never seen this funding, only federal agents brought money with them to work cases, otherwise we didnt get anything.
Cool, different locales may do things differently. I wasn't trying to imply that all police work this way.
I have also never seen the pressure to make a case but I was not exactly an investigator on every case.
I'm just going off of what I've been told, by police officers, and what I've read on many occasions. If there wasn't a need to "preserve evidence" they'd pump the brakes, reassess and come up with a better plan, I believe. A solid case shouldn't hinge on small amounts of evidence that are capable of being destroyed in such an expedient manner. Turn off the water, turn off the electricity, and then go in later. Kinda takes the fun out of throwing grenades in windows and kicking in doors.
As always, thanks for your insight.
NCPatrolAR
10-06-14, 12:42
But wasn't there just recently a story like this in the news? A no knock warrant issued on a marine vets home. He had a rifle and was trying to protect his family from what he thought was a burglary and was shot and killed by the raid team for just holding his rifle, he never fired a shot... Yet they gunned him down.. And after finding out they had the wrong house (morons) they ended up being sued for "a lot of money".
Same situation, minus the wrong address part. But no contraband was discovered in either case. So it parallels.
I think you're talking about the Pima County AZ shooting from a year or two ago. I never heard how any lawsuits went but those guys were at the correct house, were in full uniform, in day light, with a marked armored vehicle in front of the house, and conducted an obvious knock and announce prior to breaching the door (entry wasn't made prior to the shooting). It was also all on video.
So any similarities are kind going to be few and fair between based off waft I remember of that case (which was far from perfect from a tactics stand point) and what little has been said about the this one.
Ultimately I think most of us want the same thing, bad guys put away. However, because we may disagree on tactics and methodology does not mean we are anti-police or that police are anti-freedom. Depending on your frame of reference, sometimes, the juice ain't worth the squeeze, or it is...
Friends often times disagree. It doesn't stop them from being friends. :)
Voodoo_Man
10-06-14, 13:01
As always, thanks for your insight.
Of course there are places that do things that their state allows them to do. Is that the status quo? Hardly.
The issue is that if we dont want to get that evidence abd dont care about its destruction then our legal system falls apart, furthermore we get the "they broke his door down and there was nothing there" complaint. Was there nothing or did they destroy it fast enough?
Of course we want the same thing, we all want to be safe and have crime to a very low level, especially violent crime.
Pissing on swat officers is not the way to go about it however.
When the teams get issued xray goggles we can have this conversation.
So you are saying it is OK for SWAT team to blast through walls not knowing who or what is behind them because they can't see them? Is recon by force an acceptable house clearing technique for citizen homes?
Somehow I don't think as a mete citizen I would be granted such leeway in a self defense shooting if I could not prove there was a threat on the other side. How did the officers know if anyone on the other side of the wall was an immediate threat?
I think some of our military personnel were punished for a similar shooting in a combat zone.
First - you seem to have a habit of rushing to judgement and condemning officers based off a handful of articles that primarily cite info from the homicide victim's attorney as their base of fact.
Two - why would an agency fire/suspend officers for manslaughter if the elements for the offense aren't present yet. Based off of the article (which is a dangerous way to form an opinion) you have the entry team saying they conducting a knock and announcement and engaged the victim when he appeared with a weapon (and acted aggressively iirc). So, if they are able to articulate this when speaking with homicide investigators and Internal Affairs (our practice here for OIS investigations) then no; they aren't going to be immediately fired/suspended. I think several are on an admin type leave though (likely the actual officers that fired, but that's also standard).
Since you're trying to play the double standard card; I'd be just as curious as to what happened had some officers been injured/killed. Anytime a story hits the news that sounds off (such as this one), there tends to be more to the story and I have zero issues putting blame where it needs to be. But blame gets placed after the facts are in not when reading a statement from an attorney.
These are all valid points. Rushing to judgment without all of the facts is irresponsible, regardless if it was LEO or a civilian involved in a deadly force incident.
The issue is that if we dont want to get that evidence abd dont care about its destruction then our legal system falls apart, furthermore we get the "they broke his door down and there was nothing there" complaint. Was there nothing or did they destroy it fast enough?
Of course we want the same thing, we all want to be safe and have crime to a very low level, especially violent crime.
Pissing on swat officers is not the way to go about it however.
When you have flash grenades being thrown into baby cribs, innocent people getting killed and due process thrown out the window all at the expense of the WOD it's a hard sell.
On my phone, excuse the brevity. This case is far from an anomaly.
Dont know what you are getting all up in arms for. This is how it is and if you do not like it become a police chief and change it. Become a lawyer and sue for it. Be a politician and push legislation to change the warrant process or vote a politician into office who will.
Most of the things ive posted here arent opinions, they are facts as I have experienced them, some PDs may differ.
If you do not like it, do not get upset at the person educating, or attempting to anyway. Be upset at those need that type of attention. Getting angry over something like this is not going to change it.
Sorry, wasn't meaning to come off like I'm pissed at you. I interpreted your post as on that stated that the SWAT teams don't think and just follow orders, SOP, ordinances or laws or whatever are in effect today. I apologize if my fell came across as directed at you personally. I was responding to the concept of blindly following orders as SOP.
I think that when an SOP results in the death of a person not needing to be killed at that time we should step back and evaluate the SOP and do something to make it better for all involved.
Why shouldn't we get upset at the thought of people we hire, pay and entrust with our protection killing the wrong person. I would think more people need to be upset about it. If people wouldn't have gotten upset about things and try to change them black people would still be using separate restrooms or working the cotton fields. Government didn't step up to the plate and say sorry folks we've been wrong for the last 100 years let's fix it. They stood by until people put their feet to the fire. Then and only then did they do something about it.
People need to be upset when they see things they don't like going on in their communities. They need to remove their servants from office if they find them doing the wrong things. It's why we have elections.
Again, not meant as a reply to you personally, but a comment on the concept of not thinking about one is doing.
Voodoo_Man
10-06-14, 13:34
When you have flash grenades being thrown into baby cribs, innocent people getting killed and due process thrown out the window all at the expense of the WOD it's a hard sell.
On my phone, excuse the brevity. This case is far from an anomaly.
As ive said many times. There are dozens, if not more raids a day in the US. Of course there will be the statistical possibility of things going wrong. Does that mean its time to dismantle the whole swat team thing is bad?
I am over generalizing of course.
As ive said many times. There are dozens, if not more raids a day in the US. Of course there will be the statistical possibility of things going wrong. Does that mean its time to dismantle the whole swat team thing is bad?
I am over generalizing of course.
There were a million police stops where no cop was shot. Why should the tax payers spend their hard earned cash on vests??
Nobody cares about the 10000000000000 raids that go right. We are trying to prevent the one where wrong people are hurt.
Nobody is suggesting that we cancel all SWAT teams and give back the fun gear. At least I am not. There is a time and place for all things. What we are trying to do is figure out if there is a better way to do things that reduces risk to both citizen and civil servant. Some suggest that we stop using SWAT raids for evidence collection and instead do the investigative work ahead of the arrest. Why is that so untenable? Can undercover agents purchase drugs from sellers and then arrest the seller? Sure they can. It's how things were done before SWAT teams were available. Why can't we have more oversight when it comes to force escalation that is not a response to a direct threat? Is it really that hard to give SWAT commanders the ability to review and veto raids? Why shouldn't the guys who are risking their necks be given the full facts of a matter? Why shouldn't people be held accountable when they make mistakes that cost people their lives?
NCPatrolAR
10-06-14, 13:56
I think it's important to determine first if the wrong person has been hurt
As ive said many times. There are dozens, if not more raids a day in the US. Of course there will be the statistical possibility of things going wrong. Does that mean its time to dismantle the whole swat team thing is bad?
I am over generalizing of course.
How about the opposite... When a statistical anomaly such as the FBI shootout in 1986 or the 1997 N. Hollywood shootout are used to support a position of needing more equipment police officers tend to think that it's plenty of justification, because it could possibly happen. Why not adopt the same strategy and develop new tactics and procedures? I know there always evolving but I hope you see my point. Rarely does an innocent citizen get killed and rarely do psycho nut jobs go apeshit and go on a murder rampage.
I am 100% behind SWAT, door kicking and dragon slaying when it comes to life threatening situations, hostages, bad guys throwing rounds down range, etc. Game on, ****'em! But, not so much when it comes to Johnny the pot grower.
My dick skinners are too big for typing on a phone.
Eurodriver
10-06-14, 14:11
First - you seem to have a habit of rushing to judgement and condemning officers based off a handful of articles that primarily cite info from the homicide victim's attorney as their base of fact.
...Two - why would an agency fire/suspend officers for manslaughter if the elements for the offense aren't present yet.
...But blame gets placed after the facts are in not when reading a statement from an attorney.
You're right. I can, and should, wait until the facts are in to place blame.
My issue is the following: It seems like we're all supposed to bow down and mourn the loss of LEOs - spiting their killers immediately as vile human beings and proclaiming them acting in good faith while they were blown away. Yet everyone that an LEO kills is automatically judged to be a criminal (PA State trooper shooting) or, at the very least, stupid and somehow deserving of their own demise (Walmart shooting).
We should either start giving the motives of cop killers consideration as legitimate (which, I'll admit, is pretty ridiculous) or we can stop proclaiming every single LEO killing as automatically a good shoot just because they "acted in good faith".
FromMyColdDeadHand
10-06-14, 14:33
I think it's important to determine first if the wrong person has been hurt
An interesting question. No drugs were found. Is the standard that they person would have been found not guilty of the charges established in the search warrant. Or would it be that they are innocent? Not guilty and innocent are two separate things- but are we call shoots like this 'good' if we can 'convict' the subject based on hearsay, innuendos and probabilities that the subject was guilty?
The disparity in use of force between what a SWAT team can do and what a citizen can do in their own house is troubling.
Averageman
10-06-14, 14:42
If I was a SWAT Officer and I'm certainly not, I would like to have the confidence that the people sending me out to kick in doors and arrest bad guys have done the homework required.
I doubt if any of them decided this was the night they were going to shoot a homeowner on a bad tip from a CI that was high as a kite when he went in to the station to report this stuff.
Somewhere between these tips from stoned CI's and the SWAT Officer is a filter, someone who hopefully has more information to go on that "he said, she said" from a tweaker.
I feel horrible for the guy who died, but I bet the guy who pulled the trigger isn't real happy about it either.
NCPatrolAR
10-06-14, 15:31
or we can stop proclaiming every single LEO killing as automatically a good shoot just because they "acted in good faith".
We shouldnt be proclaiming any shooting as being good (LEO, military, citizen) until we know the facts behind the incident. Each group has had more than their fair share of good and bad shootings so to instantly proclaim any good is foolish IMO
I think it's important to determine first if the wrong person has been hurt
Good point and specifically the reason I keep referring to him as the dude that didn't need killing at that time. In this instance I did not read anything that stated he was doing something illegal worthy of lethal force. I do not view defending ones home from potential burglars as an illegal thing. He may very well have been the poster child behind Breaking Bad, but all indications seem to point to the fact that he wasn't doing anything illegal at the time of the raid. No contraband was found. He too was seemingly acting in good faith on bad information trying to protect his family from another robbery.
We shouldnt be proclaiming any shooting as being good (LEO, military, citizen) until we know the facts behind the incident. Each group has had more than their fair share of good and bad shootings so to instantly proclaim any good is foolish IMO
Precisely.
I feel horrible for the guy who died, but I bet the guy who pulled the trigger isn't real happy about it either.
The most important point is that HE can feel bad about it. The victim can't, he is dead.
The reason this is such a hot issue is that any assclown can say YOU are a criminal and WAMO! SWAT kicks in your door and kills yu and your family...... With no responsibility. I know most of the people I know are even armed at home. If the police announce themselves I let them in. If not it will be a bad day.
The LEOs here are very defense about this stuff because it could be them doing this and they don't want to be ass raped for the 25 to life for shooting someone on an entry who was armed and scars the crap out of them.
That is the issue. So what is the solution? Should SWAT demand more info before an entry? Should no knocks be completely left to Military door kickers only overseas? Should SWAT members be held responsible for their actions in a "questionable" shoot?
A lot of questions and I am sure that each person here will have a different answer based on their background.
Voodoo_Man
10-06-14, 16:21
Change the way its done?
That would require at the very least the following - radical change in FBI standards for SWAT and warrant service - which would then trickle down to the PD that would even remotely attempt to get behind it. Which would all require all the 4 star-paper pushers to sign off on something that they have no concept about, then push it down to the commanders who have to implement it, who also have zero idea of what they have to do in order to get things changed. All these people, by the way, are extremely set in their ways, for example my PD's "swat training sergeant" has 30+ years on the job, 20+ as a swat sgt. The commanding officer (capt) of swat has something very close to that as well. You think they want to change? Hell no. Good luck selling them on anything.
Before any of that can happen and make a positive impact in SWAT operations in the field, the investigators who get these warrants signed and submit them to SWAT for service need to be educated (laugh) to the point they aren't just making cases out of thin air.
Sorry, but that is a lot of stuff that is simply not going to happen in our lifetimes. Ask any LEO with any sort of real experience (not paper pushing or ticket writing) he will tell you the same thing.
As for the rest, there are plenty of circumstances and situations which are not reported. It happens, more often than its publicized by the media - which leads me to another point.
Stop trusting the media on anything related to LE. They lie, they have agenda's and are totally morally and ethically bankrupt when it comes to LE as a whole. I have seen them make shit up, try to bully LEO's into telling them something and then when they don't get anything "well if you don't tell me something, I'll just make it up" then they do. When reading articles like the one in the OP I cannot help but laugh at anyone who takes that type of garbage for fact in any sense.
Show me police documents, show me IA interview paperwork, show me sworn statements about the event, then we can have a conversation, otherwise its all banter and hearsay resulting in knee-jerk reactions from people who have absolutely zero understanding of how things work outside of law and order.
NCPatrolAR
10-06-14, 17:24
The reason this is such a hot issue is that any assclown can say YOU are a criminal and WAMO! SWAT kicks in your door and kills yu and your family...... With no responsibility.
Can't speak for everyone and every place but it takes more than just a statement from someone to get your door kicked in around here. We still have to show PC and get the warrant past about 3-4 levels before we can go out and serve it
When it comes to responsibility; I'd argue that we are certainly held responsible for our actions.
I work in an industry where we are retaliated against with SWATTING so the idea of no knock warrants is a big deal (http://kotaku.com/5838927/swatting-the-hip-new-griefing-trend-sends-the-cops-to-xbox-live-mods-house) . If someone kicks my door open in the middle of the night, it'll be bad all the way around. I'll likely get smoked in the process but in that couple seconds lots of bad things will happen.
I have trained with SWAT officers, and I fully support their need for ARs, Armor, flashbangs, Bearcats... Here is my issue...
One of the posters stated that we should focus on the dozens of SWAT raids that go right every day and not the occasional one that goes wrong. Is there really a need for dozens of SWAT raids a day? Violence rates across the country are down, and yet we have seen a growing use of SWAT teams around the country. THE DOD and HS provide grants for military type equipment, seemingly out of all proportion to the need. Now you have all this gear, what are you going to do? Not use it? Of course you'll use it. My contention is that the default warrant service has become "get swat" in some locations. That is not always necessary. Take the guy on the way to his car? Take the guy at work? When the government gives you all these shiny hammers, everything looks like a nail... even if its a screw, toothpick...
I am not against the possession of this gear by LE, but I do think that it is being deployed in situations where it is not needed. Nobody cared about the LE response to the Marathon bombing (including fired a couple hundred rounds at a boat with no target), because well... "they were dirtbags who had it coming". At some point, if LE doesn't reign themselves in, one of two things will happen: 1) there will be an unrecoverable schism between law enforcement and citizens or 2) there will be a political backlash and cops will be pressured to give up the weapons that they sometimes need.
Finally, if I were a police chief, I'd let it be known that the first officer that refers to members of the community as "civilians" will be warned and then disciplined. We are all civilians. Once you start referring to me as a civilian, you create a mind set. Then you get armored cars, military gear and preferentially hire military people... pretty soon you have an "us versus them" attitude that makes things like this worse.
To the poster above me? I don't believe the media. But I also, unfortunately don't really believe cops anymore either. Journalists have agendas and stretch the truth and outright lie. So do cops. The difference is, the Seattle times can't take my freedom or life away from me. Seattle PD can.
D
Voodoo_Man
10-06-14, 17:55
I work in an industry where we are retaliated against with SWATTING so the idea of no knock warrants is a big deal (http://kotaku.com/5838927/swatting-the-hip-new-griefing-trend-sends-the-cops-to-xbox-live-mods-house) . If someone kicks my door open in the middle of the night, it'll be bad all the way around. I'll likely get smoked in the process but in that couple seconds lots of bad things will happen.
I have trained with SWAT officers, and I fully support their need for ARs, Armor, flashbangs, Bearcats... Here is my issue...
One of the posters stated that we should focus on the dozens of SWAT raids that go right every day and not the occasional one that goes wrong. Is there really a need for dozens of SWAT raids a day? Violence rates across the country are down, and yet we have seen a growing use of SWAT teams around the country. THE DOD and HS provide grants for military type equipment, seemingly out of all proportion to the need. Now you have all this gear, what are you going to do? Not use it? Of course you'll use it. My contention is that the default warrant service has become "get swat" in some locations. That is not always necessary. Take the guy on the way to his car? Take the guy at work? When the government gives you all these shiny hammers, everything looks like a nail... even if its a screw, toothpick...
I am not against the possession of this gear by LE, but I do think that it is being deployed in situations where it is not needed. Nobody cared about the LE response to the Marathon bombing (including fired a couple hundred rounds at a boat with no target), because well... "they were dirtbags who had it coming". At some point, if LE doesn't reign themselves in, one of two things will happen: 1) there will be an unrecoverable schism between law enforcement and citizens or 2) there will be a political backlash and cops will be pressured to give up the weapons that they sometimes need.
Finally, if I were a police chief, I'd let it be known that the first officer that refers to members of the community as "civilians" will be warned and then disciplined. We are all civilians. Once you start referring to me as a civilian, you create a mind set. Then you get armored cars, military gear and preferentially hire military people... pretty soon you have an "us versus them" attitude that makes things like this worse.
To the poster above me? I don't believe the media. But I also, unfortunately don't really believe cops anymore either. Journalists have agendas and stretch the truth and outright lie. So do cops. The difference is, the Seattle times can't take my freedom or life away from me. Seattle PD can.
D
I do not even know where to start....I am dumbfounded by this.
First and foremost, the concept of "swatting" is by far and large a self-correcting problem. You post your information online, or make it readily available and all of a sudden its the police's fault that people get access to it and make a fake phone call saying you did something violent? People have been making crank calls since the invention of the telephone and 911. This is not new. SWAT does not come out to your house on a 911 call, it does not happen that way, never has, never will.
"I have trained with SWAT officers.....here is my issue" = "I'm not racist, but....." Same thing.
Violent crime is most certainly not down, maybe the statistics police chiefs and mayors like to report on make them seem down, but we all know how a few cities (coughchicago (http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/May-2014/Chicago-crime-rates/)cough), hell I've pointed this out on more than one occasion. There is no "default" to SWAT. At least not in my AO. We have detectives, street officers and sometimes random special units helping out on warrant service. They do not get SWAT as a default, if they did half the PD would be SWAT. You talk about getting guy on the way to his car, this has occurred several times and when pedestrians get shot in the crossfire the question is always "why didn't you do it at his house?" Some people are dangerous, that is how it works, we may not know how dangerous until we kick the door in.
Lots of people cared about how Boston was handled, hell I do not even work there and our policies changed specifically to reflect that type of situation, maybe you did not care. LE does not need to "reign" anything in. We are accountable for 100% of our actions, this has been shown over and over several times over with officers getting charged and/or fired for incidents that they would not have been a decade ago.
If you were a police chief you would completely understand the context and not even remotely have that thought come in your head. Here is the concept for you, since you obviously missed the meaning. In modern nomenclature LEO's do a public service. Much like their military counterparts, service refers to the act of an occupation or employment which contributes to the well fair of others. In this respect, LEO's are not civilians, as civilians do not have an occupation of any type of service for their fellow countrymen/women. So when a LEO refers to someone as a civilian they are planning on driving into their house with a tank full of SWAT "operators" that is fantasy world based in some FPS game.
The only "us vs. them" I have seen in recent times, especially online, is of the self-righteous, never having experienced anything, but knows everything crowd online.
Ahhh Seattle. Yea, well that pretty much sums up everything pretty clearly. The police are not there to lie to you, they are not their to bust down your door and shoot your dog in the face while throwing a flashbang into your kids bed. The media, on the other hand, would do it in order to sell a few papers and make headlines.
We are accountable for 100% of our actions, this has been shown over and over several times over with officers getting charged and/or fired for incidents that they would not have been a decade ago.
You make a lot of good points but this is patently false. Unions, arbitrators and corruption protect plenty of bad cops who face no real accountability.
Plenty of good police officers make honest mistakes, and sometimes the penalty may not fit the "crime", but to act like there's 100% accountability is disingenuous at best.
ETA - As a recent example the cops who went on their crazy fishing expedition, up some guy's ass in New Mexico, are still on the clock, wearing a badge. They should all be fired at a minimum and more than likely looking at criminal charges since they violated their search warrant, at a minimum. Tell me where the accountability is there.
ETA 2 - What about the Maryland cops who beat the shit out of a kid, on camera, lied about, wrote false reports about the incident and the judge threw out the case against them? Again, show me the accountability. There is none. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-judge-wrongly-throws-out-an-officers-assault-verdict-in-prince-georges-county/2014/09/20/70c8175e-4017-11e4-b03f-de718edeb92f_story.html
I think things have gotten completely out of hand. what was so grievous that SWAT had to storm a family's home and kill the guy? these were not known/dangerous criminals. could they not have knocked on the door and asked to speak to the homeowner and then told him they were serving a warrant?
IMO, no-knock should be reserved for circumstances where there has been murder or other heinous crimes and it is KNOWN that the felon is armed and dangerous, willing to resist, etc..
this assassination of citizens due to self-creating circumstances has got to stop. and until it does the police continue to make themselves enemies of a larger and larger percentage of Americans. ..
Change the way its done?
That would require at the very least the following - radical change in FBI standards for SWAT and warrant service - which would then trickle down to the PD that would even remotely attempt to get behind it.
would it be safe to say that the role of the FBI and homegrown cops is different in all but a small percentage of cases?
unless I'm wrong, FBI doesn't go after small time drug dealers, local felons, etc., and their tactics should be different. in the cases where local SWAT is justified, there should be a whole lot of questions answered before the lethal hounds are let slip.
just my opinion...
I do not even know where to start....I am dumbfounded by this.
First and foremost, the concept of "swatting" is by far and large a self-correcting problem. You post your information online, or make it readily available and all of a sudden its the police's fault that people get access to it and make a fake phone call saying you did something violent? People have been making crank calls since the invention of the telephone and 911. This is not new. SWAT does not come out to your house on a 911 call, it does not happen that way, never has, never will.
"I have trained with SWAT officers.....here is my issue" = "I'm not racist, but....." Same thing.
Violent crime is most certainly not down, maybe the statistics police chiefs and mayors like to report on make them seem down, but we all know how a few cities (coughchicago (http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/May-2014/Chicago-crime-rates/)cough), hell I've pointed this out on more than one occasion. There is no "default" to SWAT. At least not in my AO. We have detectives, street officers and sometimes random special units helping out on warrant service. They do not get SWAT as a default, if they did half the PD would be SWAT. You talk about getting guy on the way to his car, this has occurred several times and when pedestrians get shot in the crossfire the question is always "why didn't you do it at his house?" Some people are dangerous, that is how it works, we may not know how dangerous until we kick the door in.
Lots of people cared about how Boston was handled, hell I do not even work there and our policies changed specifically to reflect that type of situation, maybe you did not care. LE does not need to "reign" anything in. We are accountable for 100% of our actions, this has been shown over and over several times over with officers getting charged and/or fired for incidents that they would not have been a decade ago.
If you were a police chief you would completely understand the context and not even remotely have that thought come in your head. Here is the concept for you, since you obviously missed the meaning. In modern nomenclature LEO's do a public service. Much like their military counterparts, service refers to the act of an occupation or employment which contributes to the well fair of others. In this respect, LEO's are not civilians, as civilians do not have an occupation of any type of service for their fellow countrymen/women. So when a LEO refers to someone as a civilian they are planning on driving into their house with a tank full of SWAT "operators" that is fantasy world based in some FPS game.
The only "us vs. them" I have seen in recent times, especially online, is of the self-righteous, never having experienced anything, but knows everything crowd online.
Ahhh Seattle. Yea, well that pretty much sums up everything pretty clearly. The police are not there to lie to you, they are not their to bust down your door and shoot your dog in the face while throwing a flashbang into your kids bed. The media, on the other hand, would do it in order to sell a few papers and make headlines.
Wow - really? In no particular order:
I didn't say that Swatting was the police's fault. I never even said that their response to those incidents were out of line. I believe that I said that no knocks are a "big deal". And for the record, its not a self correcting problem. If you don't think a large international criminal ring can't figure out where you live, you have no idea how to mine big data from the internet. IF you have a mortage, a cell phone, a car, pay taxes... you are findable, in much the same way that you would be tracked down by a detective. I work in child exploitation and human trafficking, so rest assured the bad guys have the necessary resources.
So if I read your comments, folks who do a public service are not civilians.. That's fascinating... So if you contribute to the welfare of others you're not a civilian? I've never heard of a teacher, nurse or doctor at a public hospital, librarian at a public library, or any public employee refer to their [I]fellow citizens[I] as "civilians". It is precisely the modern nomenclature that I am calling out. I absolutely agree that the use of this term as a divider from the community has "never remotely entered" the head of a police chief. That is precisely the problem. You are civilians - no better - no worse than any other civilian. If you don't want to be called a civilian, join the military.
"LE doesn't need to reign anything in"... really? Tell that to Seattle PD, New Orleans PD, LA County SO and other departments. That is like saying "catholic priests do not need reign anything in" just because my local priest is a good guy. To assert that there are no problems undermines your credibility and objectivity. I work with cops every day ranging from an overworked detective in a small town in Texas (who I spent hours with today) to an ICE agent in Latin America, to an inspector at Interpol. I have no doubt that you are a good cop. That doesn't mean that there are not abuses and corrections that need to be made. I am also not a member of the "is of the self-righteous, never having experienced anything, but knows everything crowd", simply because I have the temerity to disagree with you. Yeah I live in Seattle and have donated hundreds of hours of my own time to help LE in their mission - so spare me the "that explains everything" line. You don't know anything about me, yet you choose to attack my motivations and intellect. Sort of like knocking on the wrong door...Its ironic that the sentence you wrote started with "the only us versus them I have seen" and then went on to create an "us versus them" statement.
I will say that LE's refusal to acknowledge any shortcomings, any need to reign anything in, any input from concerned citizens without meeting them with derision and over the top responses, does a disservice to the dialogue and doesn't advance the cause.
Voodoo man, you're obviously a passionate professional who takes pride in what you do. I am too. We just disagree on some points. It's all good. Stay safe.
Change the way its done?
I will use small words so that there is no misunderstanding of what I am saying.
YES
Who cares if it is hard to do, just suck it up and get to it. If you are not actively tiring to change what you see is wrong then you are a part of the problem. It sounds like your leadership is inflexible, complacent, and lazy. Does that "trickle down to the PD"? If so, it should be real easy for a motivated individual to look good, move up, and change things for the better.
otherwise its all banter and hearsay resulting in knee-jerk reactions from people who have absolutely zero understanding of how things work outside of law and order.
WOW, that is straight out of the left wing libtard playbook. "If you are not in it, you don't know anything about it." Really????? Are we talking about quantum physics or the Constitutional Rights that many of us are defending every day? Come on.....that is just weak. I expect more comeback than that.....might as well say "Your mamma"...:jester:
Can't speak for everyone and every place but it takes more than just a statement from someone to get your door kicked in around here. We still have to show PC and get the warrant past about 3-4 levels before we can go out and serve it. I certainly hope so. Because that is the way it SHOULD be done. Not so sure that it was done like that in this case.
When it comes to responsibility; I'd argue that we are certainly held responsible for our actions.
We will see how this situation turns out and then I will readdress it. :agree:
Change the way its done?
That would require at the very least the following - radical change in FBI standards for SWAT and warrant service - which would then trickle down to the PD that would even remotely attempt to get behind it. Which would all require all the 4 star-paper pushers to sign off on something that they have no concept about, then push it down to the commanders who have to implement it, who also have zero idea of what they have to do in order to get things changed. All these people, by the way, are extremely set in their ways, for example my PD's "swat training sergeant" has 30+ years on the job, 20+ as a swat sgt. The commanding officer (capt) of swat has something very close to that as well. You think they want to change? Hell no. Good luck selling them on anything.
Before any of that can happen and make a positive impact in SWAT operations in the field, the investigators who get these warrants signed and submit them to SWAT for service need to be educated (laugh) to the point they aren't just making cases out of thin air.
Sorry, but that is a lot of stuff that is simply not going to happen in our lifetimes. Ask any LEO with any sort of real experience (not paper pushing or ticket writing) he will tell you the same thing.
As for the rest, there are plenty of circumstances and situations which are not reported. It happens, more often than its publicized by the media - which leads me to another point.
Stop trusting the media on anything related to LE. They lie, they have agenda's and are totally morally and ethically bankrupt when it comes to LE as a whole. I have seen them make shit up, try to bully LEO's into telling them something and then when they don't get anything "well if you don't tell me something, I'll just make it up" then they do. When reading articles like the one in the OP I cannot help but laugh at anyone who takes that type of garbage for fact in any sense.
Show me police documents, show me IA interview paperwork, show me sworn statements about the event, then we can have a conversation, otherwise its all banter and hearsay resulting in knee-jerk reactions from people who have absolutely zero understanding of how things work outside of law and order.
I certainly agree with you that making changes to an entrenched set of policies will be a HUGE uphill battle. I also agree that it will take years to accomplish until or unless some poor SWAT schmuck shoots a politically connected victim.
The tone of your posts seems to indicate that because there are thousands of raids smoothly executed each year and only a handful result in tragedy that we have nothing to worry about. But you seem to miss the whole why do we have thousands of events that endanger the lives of people.
As I've stated before, SWAT has uses in very specific situations. For me those are events that pose a KNOWN imminent threat to innocent bystanders. Hostage situations, barricaded subject, active shooters... They do NOT include evidence preservation EVER.
To suggest that we quit trying to change things cause they are hard and will take time to implement is a total cop out. Maybe those pesky dead white guys should have left ole King George alone cause it was going to be hard work. Maybe MLK should have just went along with things cause changing an entrenched racist mentality was hard work.
I believe that EVERYTHING can be improved upon and have little tolerance for those who have the it's good enough mentality. I want to see fewer people's lives endangered (cop or not) for stupid reasons.
I have several friends who are police officers who refuse to go on drug raids for this very reason. Risk VS reward.
How does that work?
I don't care if the guy had an underground river of meth going under his house. The only time a No Knock should be allowed is when there is a specific danger to the officers or persons inside. Preserving evidence isn't worth any life.
There was another shooting in TX similar to the one earlier this year, in which the defendant received a No Bill. From what I read, no drugs were found and the info came from an informant.
http://www.kwtx.com/ourtown/home/headlines/Killeen--Prosecutor-Will-Seek-Death-Penalty-In-Police-Officers-Death-274000421.html
It still baffles me that information can be received and so little fact checking. Just like the mayor of Berwyn Heights and countless other situations.
It happens. Sometimes the blame is on the cops for not following through with their information, or puffery. Other times it lands on the judge who is some elected dipsh!t who barely understands how traffic tickets work who decides to sign off on warrants. I've always thought they needed to change who can issue a search warrant that involves the breach of a home by elevating the level of judiciary required to read and sign the warrant.
....manslaughter?
That you even have to ask that is mind boggling. I bet if that man, acting in the same good faith as those officers, took a few police out it would be a closed case in your book. Murder of an LEO. First degree, right?
Seriously, at what point does an LEO killing somebody innocent result in a call for criminal prosecution?
ETA: My beef isn't with the officers that actually shot this guy, but the higher ups that made a BS call to serve a warrant on a meth addicts testimony. Let's see a few Captains and Chiefs or detectives - hell, let's see the JUDGE who signed the warrant criminally indicted. That will stop this shit in a hurry
That will never, ever, ever, happen, and for really good reason.
An interesting question. No drugs were found. Is the standard that they person would have been found not guilty of the charges established in the search warrant. Or would it be that they are innocent? Not guilty and innocent are two separate things- but are we call shoots like this 'good' if we can 'convict' the subject based on hearsay, innuendos and probabilities that the subject was guilty?
The disparity in use of force between what a SWAT team can do and what a citizen can do in their own house is troubling.
So what?
The question here, and the one I put out there on the first page, is what does the warrant say?
Does the warrant provide specific facts from a known source which has proven itself reliable in the past, or corroborated the facts through other means, AS REQUIRED BY LAW, in order to secure a warrant? Did the warrant specific the particularly exigency or danger to support a no knock execution? I think it is a little stupid to blame the SWAT time that receives the warrant to execute. They typically don't conduct the investigation, prepare the affidavit, and present it to the judge. The same goes for blaming the judge, the judge reads the affidavits in support of the warrant and has to rely on the sworn testimony of the officer. The only time the judge should be blamed is if signed a warrant that is faulty outside of mere technical errors.
NCPatrolAR
10-06-14, 21:30
No drugs were found. Is the standard that they person would have been found not guilty of the charges established in the search warrant. Or would it be that they are innocent? Not guilty and innocent are two separate things- but are we call shoots like this 'good' if we can 'convict' the subject based on hearsay, innuendos and probabilities that the subject was guilty?
It doesnt matter whether drugs were found at the residence or not. People seem to fail to realize that a search warrant means there is a strong probability that items cited in the warrant affadavit are located at the residence. If those items arent there; it doesnt mean that the warrant is faulty, there was no prior investigation, etc. It simply means that the item(s) wasnt there.
NCPatrolAR
10-06-14, 21:32
As I've stated before, SWAT has uses in very specific situations. For me those are events that pose a KNOWN imminent threat to innocent bystanders. Hostage situations, barricaded subject, active shooters...
Active Shooter response is more of a patrol response than a SWAT one in the initial stages
NCPatrolAR
10-06-14, 21:42
Take the guy on the way to his car? Take the guy at work?
Those arent applicable when you're dealing with a search warrant. When you can detain someone away from the residence for a search warrant, you still have to deal with the residence and the people that may be inside.
Also as has already been pointed out, taking someone into custody at their residence has a tendency to limit the chances a bystander will be injured should violence happen.
Theres a million ways to serve warrants, a smart crew knows when its time to apply which one.
Finally, if I were a police chief, I'd let it be known that the first officer that refers to members of the community as "civilians" will be warned and then disciplined. We are all civilians. Once you start referring to me as a civilian, you create a mind set. Then you get armored cars, military gear and preferentially hire military people... pretty soon you have an "us versus them" attitude that makes things like this worse.
I think the whole "you're a civilian too" thing is assinine and a petty bitching point. Do you have the same issue when firefighters or EMTs use it? How about when gear companies do so? Its simply used as a way to refer to people that dont work in the first responder field and nothing more. I've yet to see it cause any kind of "us versus them" (which is a 2 way street but rarely acknowledged) mentality in an agency.
What phrase is acceptable for you? I tend to use citizen but that has caused butt hurt among people as well.
FromMyColdDeadHand
10-06-14, 23:25
It doesnt matter whether drugs were found at the residence or not. People seem to fail to realize that a search warrant means there is a strong probability that items cited in the warrant affadavit are located at the residence. If those items arent there; it doesnt mean that the warrant is faulty, there was no prior investigation, etc. It simply means that the item(s) wasnt there.
When you start shooting and killing people that are not guilty of the crime covered by the warrant- we have a problem.
El Vaquero
10-06-14, 23:27
Many swat teams are changing tactics. I know of a few teams that no longer run warrants at night or in early mornings because of the above mentioned court cases where the resident fears they are being burglarized. Some teams are also going away dynamic entry in favor of the breach, hold, and call out approach.
SWAT teams are changing tactics but as others have mentioned it takes time. The U.S. Marshals changed tactics a couple of years ago, only after they had some marshals and task force officers killed. Law Enforcement does have to do a better job in changing tactics before they are made to do so my case law or by people dying (both officers and citizens/civilians/everyday people) are killed.
I've run lots of warrants both search and high risk arrest warrants. I agree with NCPatrol in that it takes a smart team to know which technique to use and when. It's not easy. One thing I've learned is to expect the unexpected. No amount of time and investigating (no matter how thorough) can predict what will happen. We've passed on many a bad guy to catch them another day rather than to push a risky situation. It happens more than y'all know, just no one ever talks about it, but it does happen. In all cases, common sense and discretion should prevail. Cops are not machines though and may not always make the best play. And what's the answer when they don't make the best play? Criminal prosecution, civil prosecution, termination, be shredded by the media and Internet, or all of the above?
Whereas I would never want to be killed, or have any officers killed over preserving evidence, most of these situations are felony offenses involving suspects where this ain't their first rodeo. By this same rationale should troopers not conduct traffic stops on the side of the highway over fear that they, or the violator might be struck and killed over a traffic violation?
How does that happen?
I don't know the specifics, I can ask if you'd like. I have absolutely no reason to doubt their word or their sincerity and trust them both implicitly.
Here's what I want to know. Why not do some background research first (you know like an investigation) and then send officers (detectives) to the house and make contact with a SWAT team nearby? If the SWAT team is needed they are on the spot and can respond.
I'll also reiterate that No Knock warrants should only be allowed in cases of danger to hostages or a threat to officers that can be justified based upon past criminal conduct, or other information gathered during an investigation.
Flushing shit down the toilet or whatever isn't a good enough reason. Remember that this situation could have easily been reversed and the home owner could have killed a few cops just like what happened (again) in Texas, last month. Except I am pretty sure the LEO's would be calling for his blood because he killed one of theirs.
NCPatrolAR
10-07-14, 02:43
When you start shooting and killing people that are not guilty of the crime covered by the warrant- we have a problem.
Is Hooks innocent of dealing Meth?
Is Hooks innocent of dealing Meth?
Are we executing drug dealers in their homes now off of a tip from a car theif?
Is Hooks innocent of dealing Meth?
He is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, if he had survived the visit. At least that used to be the law of the land. Are police judging guilt because they we were told to search a home but before they have any evidence?
NCPatrolAR
10-07-14, 04:23
He is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, if he had survived the visit. At least that used to be the law of the land. Are police judging guilt because they we were told to search a home but before they have any evidence?
Innocent until proven guilty is a standard for the courtroom.
Is Hooks innocent of dealing Meth?
Better question: was he guilty of dealing drugs?
Eurodriver
10-07-14, 06:09
Better question: was he guilty of dealing drugs?
Irrelevant. Since when do LEOs have the right to execute someone because he is dealing drugs?
Voodoo_Man
10-07-14, 06:47
Too much to respond to over mobile.
The short, the street officers or swat officers arent going to change anything. The commanders and top brass need to. In order for that to occur a new younger generation nrrds to come into command. That takes a lot more time than people seem to want it to take. There is no fast approach, it is a very slow process and the targets of frustration should be top brass commanders not the officers doing the door kicking.
As for the rest, I am posting from a position of experience and fact. I did not see this on tv, like many here ive lived those situations several times over. This is what I have seen first hand, and when I hear people or read posts like many in this thread it gives me the impression people dont seem to want to hear the truth since it doesnt play into their make believe world of LE.
Also, teachers, nurses , etc are not civil servants. When it is your job to go out into the world and "serve" you are no longer a civilian, because a civilian has no obligation to act in the service of his fellow countrymen.
NCPatrolAR
10-07-14, 07:05
Better question: was he guilty of dealing drugs?
Only the victim, the officers doing the investigation, and any potential buyers/suppliers know the actual answer to whether or not he was involved in the meth game
Irrelevant. Since when do LEOs have the right to execute someone because he is dealing drugs?
Was he executed? Or was he shot because he posed a threat to LE carrying out the warrant?
Was he executed? Or was he shot because he posed a threat to LE carrying out the warrant?
Exactly. I always stunned when people start screaming innocent until proven guilty. Yes, thats absolutely right. But don't forget, you chose to greet police with a gun, deal meth, etc. Its only a totally different situation when it is a straight up wrong house/person/etc.
Exactly. I always stunned when people start screaming innocent until proven guilty. Yes, thats absolutely right. But don't forget, you chose to greet police with a gun, deal meth, etc. Its only a totally different situation when it is a straight up wrong house/person/etc.
Greet the police with a gun? Really? It was a no knock......it meth is that abundant then home invasions are most likely abundant also. You can't have it both ways.
Innocent until proven guilty is a standard for the courtroom.
And on the street, in your home, and everywhere else in the US. Right?
Was he executed? Or was he shot because he posed a threat to LE carrying out the warrant?
What warrent? It was a home invasion until they announce themselves. That is why no knocks are a bad idea most of the time.
Averageman
10-07-14, 09:34
I have to think, if I had anything to hide in my residence and when I came home I had been burglarized, anything that needed to be moved would be gone before 911 was called.
If this guy was really a dealer and working on the level where he had a nice home and a business and built up some sort of cover for his crimes, don't you think he would do the same?
Wouldn't it be smarter then to use that information by the questionable informant to watch him 24-7 so that you could see what his movements and actions would be rather than to go in to the home at night with a warrent to find stuff that was already moved?
Exactly. I always stunned when people start screaming innocent until proven guilty. Yes, thats absolutely right. But don't forget, you chose to greet police with a gun, deal meth, etc. Its only a totally different situation when it is a straight up wrong house/person/etc.
Greeting police with a gun!? So the guys home is previously robbed (ironical by the same guy who swears out the affidavit against him) and then his wife tells him guys wearing masks are running around outside. Wouldn't you grab a gun?? I know I would and it wouldn't be my pistol either. I know what my local SWAT guys looks like cause I take the opportunity to interact with them. How many people know the difference between SWAT and ISIS? I'd wager not many. If it wasn't a real SWAT team, but a bunch of tattoed drug task force guys wearing Megadeth tshirts coming it makes for an even bigger disaster. True story. My son and I are out shooting hoops. Car pulls up across the street and some guy wearing a red Tshirts, bass ackwards hat steps out the passenger side. No soon does he do so 2 cruisers pull up to a home down the street and begin busting a couple of women. Red shirt walks around back of car eyeballing the cops. As soon as he clears the trunk I see tatted hands and sleeves, ratty shirt and gun stuffed in his waistband. First instinct is grab kid and shove him toward the house and cover as I'm reaching for my gun. Out steps driver of car with badge hanging over her neck telling red shirt to stay out of sight. Red shirt must have been UC making a buy or something. Based on his appearance and demeanor my first though wasn't cop; but gangbanger pissed that his bitch got busted.
Dealing Meth?! Was he? Did he happen to be out of inventory at the time of the raid? We don't know and never will cause he is dead. We are supposed to presume innocent till proven guilty.
Is Hooks innocent of dealing Meth?
Assume he survived the encounter. Would he have been arrested and changers with a crime? No cause nothing was found. He would have been questioned and released. If the department and DA would have chosen to go to trial based on the affidavit and search results I seriously club a jury would have convicted him on no evidence and the work of a high meth head.
At the time of the raid there was no evidence that we are pro I to to suggest that he was dealing meth. According to he Constitution that makes him innocent cause the state can't prove shit.
What warrent? It was a home invasion until they announce themselves. That is why no knocks are a bad idea most of the time.
A judge had signed off on a search warrant, as far as I understand. Unless I misunderstand the process completely, a valid search warrant gives LE legal authority to enter the premises.
Can a home-owner contest a signed search warrant? I am asking as I do not know.
Why is it a home-invasion until they identify themselves? Is that a legal definition? Is there precedent differentiating the status of police presence in a private home?
In Norway, police can conduct a search of a suspect's home/property/person if there is probable cause.
As for the investigation leading up to the incident, if the warrant was granted based on uncorroborated single source information, from an unknown or unreliable source, then I agree that the investigation should be put under scrutiny. If there was more information to corroborate the informant's story, that changes the situation.
El Vaquero
10-07-14, 10:10
Here's what I want to know. Why not do some background research first (you know like an investigation) and then send officers (detectives) to the house and make contact with a SWAT team nearby? If the SWAT team is needed they are on the spot and can respond.
Flushing shit down the toilet or whatever isn't a good enough reason.
I can't speak for others but I can assure you that on the warrants that I plan a background is performed using a variety of tools ranging from surveillance to criminal histories, prior calls for service, state and local databases, etc. Im not quite sure what you mean by send some detectives up to the door and make contact first. Are these detectives dressed in plain clothes, raid vest? What exactly are they supposed to do, say, "Excuse me Mr. Drug Dealer, may we please come in? I have a search warrant." If I make the decision to request a SWAT team it's because the occupants have a prior history of violent offenses or there might be weapons. If there is no history or other circumstances we run the warrant ourselves, sans SWAT.
We are supposed to presume innocent till proven guilty
So, police are not to defend themselves until a suspect is proven guily in a court of law? Because that is the argument you are making, and it makes no sense. Self defense is not dependant on a court verdict.
I have not read the search warrant, nor am I privvy to all the information that led to the granting of the search warrant or the choice of tactics to be used for the warrant.
The situation on the ground, based on the news reports is that the deceased was alerted by his wife, to a possible threat outside their home. He grabs a weapon to ready himself.
Police enter the premises, and the deceased acts agressively towards the police. The guys on the ground feel that the use of force is neccessary to protect themselves.
Do we know what happend from the point where police entered up until shots were fired? Did police identify themselves, issuing commands to the deceased? Did the deceased actually refuse to comply with these commands? How much time elapsed from first contact between deceased and police until shots were fired? Did the police gun him down the moment he came into view holding a weapon? Do we know the posture of the deceased when he was shot?
There are too many unknowns here, IMO, to reach a definitive conclusion.
If the deceased was in fact a meth dealer, do we know that a knock-approach in daylight with investigators would not have resulted in gunfire?
There is no way to predict the outcome of any situation.
Averageman
10-07-14, 10:22
A judge had signed off on a search warrant, as far as I understand. Unless I misunderstand the process completely, a valid search warrant gives LE legal authority to enter the premises.
Can a home-owner contest a signed search warrant? I am asking as I do not know.
Why is it a home-invasion until they identify themselves? Is that a legal definition? Is there precedent differentiating the status of police presence in a private home?
In Norway, police can conduct a search of a suspect's home/property/person if there is probable cause.
As for the investigation leading up to the incident, if the warrant was granted based on uncorroborated single source information, from an unknown or unreliable source, then I agree that the investigation should be put under scrutiny. If there was more information to corroborate the informant's story, that changes the situation.
It didn't appear to be a "Judge."
If you're going to contest the search warrant, that will most likely take place in court not your front door at midnight.
Why is it a home invasion, I don't know that it is a home invasion; but after being burglarized earlier that day, guys comming through the door in black masks with guns might lead me to believe it is.
The Law is a bit different here in the US.
With a lack of information on sources and evidence, we're all sort of in the dark.
So, police are not to defend themselves until a suspect is proven guily in a court of law? Because that is the argument you are making, and it makes no sense. Self defense is not dependant on a court verdict.
So, the homeowner isn't supposed to defend himself against unknown, masked intruders who didn't announce themselves? Guess what, this ain't Norway, and we do have people committing home invasions impersonating the police. And we do have police raiding the wrong house, wrong address, wrong people quite often. (https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=police+raid+wrong+house)
Averageman
10-07-14, 10:27
I can't speak for others but I can assure you that on the warrants that I plan a background is performed using a variety of tools ranging from surveillance to criminal histories, prior calls for service, state and local databases, etc. Im not quite sure what you mean by send some detectives up to the door and make contact first. Are these detectives dressed in plain clothes, raid vest? What exactly are they supposed to do, say, "Excuse me Mr. Drug Dealer, may we please come in? I have a search warrant." If I make the decision to request a SWAT team it's because the occupants have a prior history of violent offenses or there might be weapons. If there is no history or other circumstances we run the warrant ourselves, sans SWAT.
In your opinion and with the experiance you have, do you think after the burglary the guy would leave the dope at the house?
Like I said earlier, he seemed to have a nice house in a nice neighborhood and some nice cars. This leads me to believe if he was living a double life as a contractor/ drug dealer, he must be pretty good at his trade and a bit smarter than the average street thug.
I would think if there was dope in the house it was long gone before 911 was called.
El Vaquero
10-07-14, 10:27
A judge had signed off on a search warrant, as far as I understand. Unless I misunderstand the process completely, a valid search warrant gives LE legal authority to enter the premises.
Can a home-owner contest a signed search warrant? I am asking as I do not know.
Why is it a home-invasion until they identify themselves? Is that a legal definition? Is there precedent differentiating the status of police presence in a private home?
In Norway, police can conduct a search of a suspect's home/property/person if there is probable cause.
As for the investigation leading up to the incident, if the warrant was granted based on uncorroborated single source information, from an unknown or unreliable source, then I agree that the investigation should be put under scrutiny. If there was more information to corroborate the informant's story, that changes the situation.
You are correct, a valid search warrant grants authority to enter seize what is requested in the warrant. A search warrant can be contested later in court.
What is the point of contention is the manner in which search warrants are executed. Many feel that when a no knock is executed it is akin to a home invasion because police are not announcing their presence and are executing it during odd hours (late at night etc.) where the homeowner feels they are being robbed.
And yes I agree if the warrant was granted on uncorroborated, unsubstantiated information than yes there needs to be accountability. A lot of assumptions are being made however about this warrant being a bad warrant when no one here has read it yet.
El Vaquero
10-07-14, 10:36
In your opinion and with the experiance you have, do you think after the burglary the guy would leave the dope at the house?
Like I said earlier, he seemed to have a nice house in a nice neighborhood and some nice cars. This leads me to believe if he was living a double life as a contractor/ drug dealer, he must be pretty good at his trade and a bit smarter than the average street thug.
I would think if there was dope in the house it was long gone before 911 was called.
On many that I've conducted that involve nice homes etc, the drugs are often kept elsewhere (stash houses, etc). The nice house may have the money (or paper trail), which may have been why it was burglarized (if indeed that was the case here).
So, the homeowner isn't supposed to defend himself against unknown, masked intruders who didn't announce themselves? Guess what, this ain't Norway, and we do have people committing home invasions impersonating the police. And we do have police raiding the wrong house, wrong address, wrong people quite often. (https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=police+raid+wrong+house)
I know that the US is not Norway, I was just providing info on how police do it here. Nothing more, nothing less. Again, my questions are not meant to be confrontational, but as talking points for discussion.
I never said anything regarding the homeowner's right to defend himself, I said that the premise of the "innocent until proven guilty" argument is invalid as it pertains to police use of force against a suspect. A person does not have to be found guily in a court of law in order for police to legally use force.
I also said that there are many unknowns as to what happened from time of entry and up until shots fired. This information would help clear up a few issues.
Those arent applicable when you're dealing with a search warrant. When you can detain someone away from the residence for a search warrant, you still have to deal with the residence and the people that may be inside.
Also as has already been pointed out, taking someone into custody at their residence has a tendency to limit the chances a bystander will be injured should violence happen.
Theres a million ways to serve warrants, a smart crew knows when its time to apply which one.
I think the whole "you're a civilian too" thing is assinine and a petty bitching point. Do you have the same issue when firefighters or EMTs use it? How about when gear companies do so? Its simply used as a way to refer to people that dont work in the first responder field and nothing more. I've yet to see it cause any kind of "us versus them" (which is a 2 way street but rarely acknowledged) mentality in an agency.
What phrase is acceptable for you? I tend to use citizen but that has caused butt hurt among people as well.
I'll stop because I'm taking the thread far off of its initial course. NCPatrol, i'll defer to your experience on warrant service. From all your posts, you appear to have checks and balances in how you approach SWAT deployments. That's a great thing. I don't, however, think its universal. I too would use the word citizen.
In answer to your questions about the use of the term civilian. YEs, I object to its use by fire fighters, and EMTs. Not as much as cops because we don't see firefighters and EMTs using force on citizens.
I see this as a cultural problem: You have LE objecting to any assertion that they need to be reigned in - the erroneous use of force incidents in New Orleans, Oakland, Baltimore, New York, Seattle, South Carolina... not withstanding. Input from "civilians" is usually dismissed as knee jerk, anti cop, "never experienced anything" opinions. We have cops in this thread saying "LE doesn't need to be reigned in" and "I had problems with the way Boston was handled". Those thoughts appear to be mutually exclusive. Cops deny the "us versus them" mentality and then use a term like "civilian" to describe the populace that they are protecting. I've never heard it used as a unifier or as a compliment. It is nearly always used to refer to someone who "isn't one of us". I'd respectfully suggest that words matter, and they affect mind set. In far less important areas, you'll see companies like Facebook, Google, and Microsoft are using the word "customer" instead of "user" - it creates a mindset. Now layer on cops in jumpsuits with pants legs tucked into boots, SWAT teams in camo, Cops pointing rifles at people, a Seattle cop threatening to "stomp the Mexican piss out of you" - to the wrong guy, and some pretty troubling use of force incidents, and the divide grows. Seattle PD got a drone without thinking through any of the privacy concerns. There was such a backlash, they gave it to LAPD. Thats a shame because a drone has its uses, but again, the new toy was sought before policies and processes were in place to protect privacy and rights of civilians. By ignoring those, they lost a valuable tool. Now throw in socio economic factors, racial issues, crazy liberal politicians on one hand and crazy conservative politicians on the other, and the divide gets wider. If the goal is to bridge the gap between LE and the population, we might want to start with not using inaccurate terms that set one group apart from the others.
Distrust of police is growing in this country. Some of it is the fault of the media, mud racking politicians, and activists. Some of it is also the fault of the police. That distrust will have serious consequences over time and we will all be to blame.
D
What is the point of contention is the manner in which search warrants are executed. Many feel that when a no knock is executed it is akin to a home invasion because police are not announcing their presence and are executing it during odd hours (late at night etc.) where the homeowner feels they are being robbed.
That's the crux of the matter, in my opinion.
I know that the US is not Norway, I was just providing info on how police do it here. Nothing more, nothing less. Again, my questions are not meant to be confrontational, but as talking points for discussion.
My apologies for my flippant tone. I've read about far too many similar raids where people end up hurt, dead, dogs shot, property destroyed and the citizen basically has no recourse. Be well.
NCPatrolAR
10-07-14, 12:14
And on the street, in your home, and everywhere else in the US. Right?
Only at the end of an episode of Cops
So, police are not to defend themselves until a suspect is proven guily in a court of law? Because that is the argument you are making, and it makes no sense. Self defense is not dependant on a court verdict.
Nobody is arguing that the police or residents should not defend themselves. I think everybody no matter what side of the equation you fall on agrees that dynamic raids done at odd hours without clear police announcement (5 masked men screaming simultaneously out of sync after kicking in a door doesnt count) are an exponential increase in the risk to both homeowner and police. Pretty sure that everyone also agrees that SWAT teams and dynamic tactics have a place in law enforcement.
The debate IMO, is around why we seem to be interested in escalating situations that may not require it and then do so with what appears to be haphazard oversight. In this instance the information seems to point to a no knock being issued on the word of a high drug abuser and self admitted burglar.
Everyone has a right to defend themselves from attack. Police and homeowners. Why continue to place both sides of the equation into potential lose-lose situations? ALL no knocks are a potential for bad shit to happen. In this situation a cop killed a homeowner who didn't need killing. He has to live with that. Why? Cause some idiot wanted to preserve an ounce of meth? IMO that's a risk/reward equation with a divide by zero error. Same goes for the inverse. Cops kick in door and get lit up and die. Cops are down a man and homeowner at worst rots in jail or at best has to live with having killed someone that didn't really need killing. Why? What possible reason do you have to elevate the risk to such levels? Saving a batch of dope? NOT GOOD ENOUGH.
Are there no better alternatives to catching drug dealers than by brute force?
Only at the end of an episode of Cops
That though process is want causes a very rough road a head for everyone. I get being jaded from dealing with the underside of humanity but when everyone looks like that it is time for you to move on to greener pastures.
Voodoo_Man
10-07-14, 13:21
I'll stop because I'm taking the thread far off of its initial course. NCPatrol, i'll defer to your experience on warrant service. From all your posts, you appear to have checks and balances in how you approach SWAT deployments. That's a great thing. I don't, however, think its universal. I too would use the word citizen.
In answer to your questions about the use of the term civilian. YEs, I object to its use by fire fighters, and EMTs. Not as much as cops because we don't see firefighters and EMTs using force on citizens.
I see this as a cultural problem: You have LE objecting to any assertion that they need to be reigned in - the erroneous use of force incidents in New Orleans, Oakland, Baltimore, New York, Seattle, South Carolina... not withstanding. Input from "civilians" is usually dismissed as knee jerk, anti cop, "never experienced anything" opinions. We have cops in this thread saying "LE doesn't need to be reigned in" and "I had problems with the way Boston was handled". Those thoughts appear to be mutually exclusive. Cops deny the "us versus them" mentality and then use a term like "civilian" to describe the populace that they are protecting. I've never heard it used as a unifier or as a compliment. It is nearly always used to refer to someone who "isn't one of us". I'd respectfully suggest that words matter, and they affect mind set. In far less important areas, you'll see companies like Facebook, Google, and Microsoft are using the word "customer" instead of "user" - it creates a mindset. Now layer on cops in jumpsuits with pants legs tucked into boots, SWAT teams in camo, Cops pointing rifles at people, a Seattle cop threatening to "stomp the Mexican piss out of you" - to the wrong guy, and some pretty troubling use of force incidents, and the divide grows. Seattle PD got a drone without thinking through any of the privacy concerns. There was such a backlash, they gave it to LAPD. Thats a shame because a drone has its uses, but again, the new toy was sought before policies and processes were in place to protect privacy and rights of civilians. By ignoring those, they lost a valuable tool. Now throw in socio economic factors, racial issues, crazy liberal politicians on one hand and crazy conservative politicians on the other, and the divide gets wider. If the goal is to bridge the gap between LE and the population, we might want to start with not using inaccurate terms that set one group apart from the others.
Distrust of police is growing in this country. Some of it is the fault of the media, mud racking politicians, and activists. Some of it is also the fault of the police. That distrust will have serious consequences over time and we will all be to blame.
D
Maybe this is normal for your area, being vastly more liberal than many other places, but this is not the standard everywhere. Hell, in my AO citizens refer to themselves as civilians and this is not something brought on by the police, its just nornal, understood even.
There is no trust issue that is getting wider, not in the real world anyway. Online, yea places like reddit and the like are a breeding ground for anti LE nonesense which is not shared by the vast majority of people in the US. I work in one of the largest PDs in the US and even in the worst places I still get people thanking me. The media is widely responsible for most of this, not a handful of heavily publicized situations that were blown out of proportion by a bias news source. If the media published, en mass, the good as the do the bad we wouldnt even be having this convo.
The current image of LE as a whole is unchanged and unsullied, even though there are attempts to piss on LE every chance possible.
I respect the fact you are posting your opinion, but I cannot say you are correct based on my experience. If you fall in line locally then you are the vast minority of people who believe this.
NCPatrolAR
10-07-14, 13:32
That though process is want causes a very rough road a head for everyone. I get being jaded from dealing with the underside of humanity but when everyone looks like that it is time for you to move on to greener pastures.
Nah; it's more of misunderstanding of terms and lack of understanding where they are applicable. Kind of like everyone saying "no knock service" when they actually mean dynamic service.
And I don't view my work as dealing with the underside of humanity
Nah; it's more of misunderstanding of terms and lack of understanding where they are applicable. Kind of like everyone saying "no knock service" when they actually mean dynamic service.
And I don't view my work as dealing with the underside of humanity
So what did you mean then?
El Vaquero
10-07-14, 14:50
Nobody is arguing that the police or residents should not defend themselves. I think everybody no matter what side of the equation you fall on agrees that dynamic raids done at odd hours without clear police announcement (5 masked men screaming simultaneously out of sync after kicking in a door doesnt count) are an exponential increase in the risk to both homeowner and police. Pretty sure that everyone also agrees that SWAT teams and dynamic tactics have a place in law enforcement.
The debate IMO, is around why we seem to be interested in escalating situations that may not require it and then do so with what appears to be haphazard oversight. In this instance the information seems to point to a no knock being issued on the word of a high drug abuser and self admitted burglar.
Everyone has a right to defend themselves from attack. Police and homeowners. Why continue to place both sides of the equation into potential lose-lose situations? ALL no knocks are a potential for bad shit to happen. In this situation a cop killed a homeowner who didn't need killing. He has to live with that. Why? Cause some idiot wanted to preserve an ounce of meth? IMO that's a risk/reward equation with a divide by zero error. Same goes for the inverse. Cops kick in door and get lit up and die. Cops are down a man and homeowner at worst rots in jail or at best has to live with having killed someone that didn't really need killing. Why? What possible reason do you have to elevate the risk to such levels? Saving a batch of dope? NOT GOOD ENOUGH.
Are there no better alternatives to catching drug dealers than by brute force?
Sometimes, no. Do you think Mr. 5 Time Felon who has already been to prison twice before is going to turn himself in just because there is a warrant for his arrest? Um, no. I mentioned it before, but IMO, there is much greater risk and far less reward in running traffic stops on the highway for speeding infractions than running a warrant on a felon for a good felony offense where odds are someone will be going to prison and where yes, you might find a few ounces of coke, meth, heroin, or whatever it may be.
JBecker 72
10-07-14, 15:11
Exactly. I always stunned when people start screaming innocent until proven guilty. Yes, thats absolutely right. But don't forget, you chose to greet police with a gun, deal meth, etc. Its only a totally different situation when it is a straight up wrong house/person/etc.
How do you greet an invader in your home?
Irrelevant. Since when do LEOs have the right to execute someone because he is dealing drugs?
I think you missed the angle I was coming from.
Averageman
10-07-14, 15:35
On many that I've conducted that involve nice homes etc, the drugs are often kept elsewhere (stash houses, etc). The nice house may have the money (or paper trail), which may have been why it was burglarized (if indeed that was the case here).
Thats sort of what I would have guessed. Being a Contractor and building or renovating homes, there are probobly a couple of dozen homes, offices and vehicles he could have stashed anything he might have had to hide.
But then again, maybe he is totally innocent.
I guess it's not a bad warrant. Unless you are the dead homeowner or his wife and family.
You are correct, a valid search warrant grants authority to enter seize what is requested in the warrant. A search warrant can be contested later in court.
What is the point of contention is the manner in which search warrants are executed. Many feel that when a no knock is executed it is akin to a home invasion because police are not announcing their presence and are executing it during odd hours (late at night etc.) where the homeowner feels they are being robbed.
And yes I agree if the warrant was granted on uncorroborated, unsubstantiated information than yes there needs to be accountability. A lot of assumptions are being made however about this warrant being a bad warrant when no one here has read it yet.
Averageman
10-07-14, 19:36
http://www.vice.com/read/bad-information-leads-to-worse-police-raids-106
David Hooks’s death reads like a boilerplate tale of a police raid gone wrong. Around 11 PM on September 24, deputies from the Laurens County, Georgia, sheriff’s department stormed their way into his house looking, they say, for meth. A reported 16 shots later, the 59-year-old was dead, and naturally there are conflicting accounts about what happened. The cops claim Hooks brandished his shotgun at them when they came in; Hooks’s family’s lawyer says that the raid victim’s wife, Teresa, had seen cops in hoods lurking around the house and was worried they were robbers (the home had been burglarized only a couple nights before) and Hooks was merely worried about defending his property. No drugs or anything illegal was found in the home, according to the lawyer.
The complicating factor here is that the warrant was issued on the say-so of an informant, Rodney Garrett, who had stolen an SUV, a firearm, and—he claimed—a bag containing scales and 20 grams of meth from the Hooks residence. Garrett turned himself in and told the police about the alleged drugs, saying that he feared for his life.
And sometimes it goes all sideways on the Cops.
Dubious informants are a familiar catalyst for this kind of raid. Virginian Ryan Frederick is currently serving ten years for manslaughter because he shot the cop who broke down his door during a 2008 narcotics raid that was the result of a tip from a man who said Frederick was growing pot. The informant saw plants that resembled a marijuana grow, Frederick’s supporters told Radley Balko, when he broke into the man’s house.
Manslaughter? Wasn't that mentioned earlier in this post?
El Vaquero
10-07-14, 20:07
I guess it's not a bad warrant. Unless you are the dead homeowner or his wife and family.
Please accept my deepest apologies Mr. Iraqgunz if you are privy to more information about the warrant and are just unable to comment about it at this time. . .
One of the issues that is being brought up is the investigator may have rushed to judgement and assumed the information the informant gave was correct when it may not have been. That he did not corroborate with facts. If that is the case than he was wrong and may he get what he has coming. However, isn't that what's kind of happening here when folks make assumptions about it being a bad warrant without having read the affidavit or without any corroboration of facts. . .
Forgive me if when I conduct my investigations I prefer to use facts that are corroborated before just making assumptions on what I hear or read on the Internet and/or forums. Geesh man, I'm a proponent for the 4th Amendment and people being safe and secure in their homes but if we're going to hammer someone (the investigator) for not getting all the facts and corroborating them, let's not do the same thing. That's all I'm saying. . .
Sometimes, no. Do you think Mr. 5 Time Felon who has already been to prison twice before is going to turn himself in just because there is a warrant for his arrest? Um, no. I mentioned it before, but IMO, there is much greater risk and far less reward in running traffic stops on the highway for speeding infractions than running a warrant on a felon for a good felony offense where odds are someone will be going to prison and where yes, you might find a few ounces of coke, meth, heroin, or whatever it may be.
Is this a case of a known felon with known violent tendencies? At this stage we have no information showing that the dead guy had done anything in wrong. I have said this numerous times: there are appropriate uses for dynamic entry tactics and SWAT team raids. Those IMO include situations where there is an known threat of violence from the suspects. Classic examples are hostage rescue, barricaded suspect, arrest warrant against people with known violent histories... Aside from situations where there is an immediate threat there MUST be oversight of all justifications for the escalation of force. How many actual leaders would send their men into danger on the word of a stoned junkie burglar?? You suppose if the investigator was forced to tell the team face to face: high as kite Jimmy here said he broke into Mr Bill's house and borrowed his car, but swears that the dope wasn't his. So I want you guys to go in there risk your lives so we can bust this guy and save the children?? How do you suppose that would go over at the brief?
Why are people so intent on defending this mentality that we don't want to think. If the paper says go kick in a door that's what we do. Who cares if we kill an innocent guy, lose one of our own, damage property, damage our reputation...
Again, unless someone shows otherwise the situation we are discussing does not appear to be one where there was an indication of violent history an imminent threat by the resident; nine of that. If there was get the facts out.
Waiting for facts... (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/after-a-year-with-no-answers-in-fairfax-police-slaying-of-john-geer-family-sues/2014/09/02/54da1892-31e6-11e4-a723-fa3895a25d02_story.html)Like the family of John Geer, who was unarmed, shot and killed by the police over a year ago, and the police and investigators refuse to release any information pertaining to the case. They won't even acknowledge that they're still investigating the incident while the officer sits on desk duty. Pathetic.
At the ten month mark. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/local/wp/2014/07/08/ten-months-of-silence-in-the-fairfax-police-shooting-death-of-john-geer/)
At the five month mark of silence, Fairfax prosecutor Ray Morrogh booted the case to federal prosecutors, telling me that there was “a potential conflict with one of the witnesses and this office,” and another conflict “concerns some information and I just can’t get it.” He has declined to discuss the case since. Several law enforcement sources have indicated to me that the officer involved in the case may have had undisclosed issues of his own, that Morrogh sought his personnel files and that the police refused to hand it over. Morrogh then turned to the feds to possibly subpoena the file, or determine whether it was even relevant. In addition, the officer who did not fire his weapon while standing next to the shooter may have prior perjury issues, one source said. These issues could possibly explain Morrogh’s comments about a “potential conflict” (the non-shooting officer) and “some information” (the shooter’s personnel files).
Morrogh said last week that he could not discuss the case since he was no longer investigating it. Acting U.S. Attorney Dana Boente said he could not even confirm the case’s existence. Fairfax County police Chief Edwin Roessler Jr. said that the FBI was reviewing the case, but had no more information than that.
El Vaquero
10-07-14, 21:50
Is this a case of a known felon with known violent tendencies? At this stage we have no information showing that the dead guy had done anything in wrong. I have said this numerous times: there are appropriate uses for dynamic entry tactics and SWAT team raids. Those IMO include situations where there is an known threat of violence from the suspects. Classic examples are hostage rescue, barricaded suspect, arrest warrant against people with known violent histories... Aside from situations where there is an immediate threat there MUST be oversight of all justifications for the escalation of force. How many actual leaders would send their men into danger on the word of a stoned junkie burglar?? You suppose if the investigator was forced to tell the team face to face: high as kite Jimmy here said he broke into Mr Bill's house and borrowed his car, but swears that the dope wasn't his. So I want you guys to go in there risk your lives so we can bust this guy and save the children?? How do you suppose that would go over at the brief?
Why are people so intent on defending this mentality that we don't want to think. If the paper says go kick in a door that's what we do. Who cares if we kill an innocent guy, lose one of our own, damage property, damage our reputation...
Again, unless someone shows otherwise the situation we are discussing does not appear to be one where there was an indication of violent history an imminent threat by the resident; nine of that. If there was get the facts out.
TAZ- You are taking a quote out of context. You conveniently left out the question you asked to which I answered. You asked if there were times when there is no other options to catch drug dealers than by brute force. You were not asking about this specific incident which is in question, which I did not answer to which you are applying my response to. If you would slow down and read some of my posts where I have commented on how some teams are going away from a lot of no knock type warrants or at a minimum changing the way they do things. THIS IS NOT A BAD THING. Slow your roll TAZ. I'm am FOR, not against having hoops to jump through for no knock warrants. The only mentality I'm defending is one of to go by facts not assumptions. Not sure why you chose my post for your rant but whatever.
I'm not sure if you have a bone to pick with what I said or if you're caught up in the us vs them thing.
You can always trust what's on a warrant and the charges that have been filed. At least these people received just compensation about a week ago in Denver. (http://www.9news.com/story/news/local/2014/09/26/jury-awards-18m-in-wrongful-prosecution-case/16304919/) However, the $1.8 million should've come out of the officer's pockets.
A Denver jury has awarded $1.8 million to a family in a wrongful prosecution case in which police officers executed a warrantless raid on a home previously occupied by drug dealers and prostitutes.
The Denver Post reports that in January 2009, four officers pounded on Daniel Martinez Jr.'s door, where he was living with his three sons. A lawsuit filed in 2011 says the officers rushed in and arrested the family, then trumped up false charges against the four to divert attention from their own misconduct.
Martinez was charged with interference with a police officer, and his three sons were charged with misdemeanor assault. The charges were either later dropped or resulted in acquittals.
One thing's for certain. As these things continue to happen and put into the spotlight by the media, the distrust that is happening will continue to grow more and more. The results at some point are going to be very bad.
One thing's for certain. As these things continue to happen and put into the spotlight by the media, the distrust that is happening will continue to grow more and more. The results at some point are going to be very bad.
They already are "bad". To read anti LE sentiment on forums like this day in and day out is sickening. From a LEO's perspective, it sucks. It sucks that there is a lot of validity to what some of the people are posting. It sucks that there are LEO's out there who do a shitty job and cast a bad light on the good ones who do their job well and serve the public with honor and integrity. I am glad that I don't have much time left in my career before retirement because this is getting old.
As a non-LE citizen this seems like another good argument for body cameras.
There's always a minimum of three sides to any story.
There's no reason the SWAT officers could not have fired up on-body or gun cameras before entering the property.
Voodoo_Man
10-08-14, 07:34
As a non-LE citizen this seems like another good argument for body cameras.
There's always a minimum of three sides to any story.
There's no reason the SWAT officers could not have fired up on-body or gun cameras before entering the property.
While this may be an excellent idea on paper, the whole body camera ID has very clear limitations.
Perfect example - watch this video first - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7At5RyV_yo - make observations and conclusions. Good shoot? Bad Shoot? Throw the cops in jail or give them a medal?
Then watch the second video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPEiRQoALcs - Same situation, different camera angle, were your observations correct?
There is also the giant elephant in the room that no one wants to talk about - cost.
As a non-LE citizen this seems like another good argument for body cameras................There's no reason the SWAT officers could not have fired up on-body or gun cameras before entering the property.
Budget. Body cameras are a great tool, but a lot of police agencies cannot afford them.
While this may be an excellent idea on paper, the whole body camera ID has very clear limitations.
Perfect example - watch this video first - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7At5RyV_yo - make observations and conclusions. Good shoot? Bad Shoot? Throw the cops in jail or give them a medal?
Then watch the second video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPEiRQoALcs - Same situation, different camera angle, were your observations correct?
There is also the giant elephant in the room that no one wants to talk about - cost.
This is a very good example. Thanks for posting it.
Not only are there initial costs, but the ongoing tech costs, and problems that come up when all the sudden there is a technical failure. That being said. A good video in the courtroom is priceless.
Voodoo_Man
10-08-14, 08:02
This is a very good example. Thanks for posting it.
Not only are there initial costs, but the ongoing tech costs, and problems that come up when all the sudden there is a technical failure. That being said. A good video in the courtroom is priceless.
It is one of many that I have seen over the years - this one specifically shows the limitations from two separate angles, there are many that do not have this type of two-angle way of explaining a situation.
The costs alone grow, exponentially, with the larger departments. Even "cheap" cameras - which would have horrible night vision, horrible audio and possibly horrible day video recording, would still cost millions of dollars to outfit a middle-sized department (100-500 officers). Who is going to foot that bill? The taxpayers of course, and who wants to pay more taxes?
skijunkie55
10-08-14, 09:16
It is one of many that I have seen over the years - this one specifically shows the limitations from two separate angles, there are many that do not have this type of two-angle way of explaining a situation.
The costs alone grow, exponentially, with the larger departments. Even "cheap" cameras - which would have horrible night vision, horrible audio and possibly horrible day video recording, would still cost millions of dollars to outfit a middle-sized department (100-500 officers). Who is going to foot that bill? The taxpayers of course, and who wants to pay more taxes?
Millions of dollars?? The tax payer already has to pay millions of dollars when the victims of raids gone wrong receive a multi-million dollar wrongful death settlement. Certainly isn't coming out of the officer's pocket. (unless of course your city has a "cap" on these settlements. Then $400K for killing a family member isn't so bad.)
GoPro Hero - $399.
Contour Camera - $199
A big question in the OP - did police announce themselves or not? I know for a fact a $400 Go pro would make that plain as day.
While this may be an excellent idea on paper, the whole body camera ID has very clear limitations.
Perfect example - watch this video first - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7At5RyV_yo - make observations and conclusions. Good shoot? Bad Shoot? Throw the cops in jail or give them a medal?
Then watch the second video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPEiRQoALcs - Same situation, different camera angle, were your observations correct?
There is also the giant elephant in the room that no one wants to talk about - cost.
Edit* - I just watched this, and right off the bat this is not a perfect example. High speed chase turned into assault on a cop =/= no knock home invasion. Your example here has already committed a crime and endangered the lives of officers and other drivers on the road. IMO the kid gloves come off and you use force. Shooting a man defending his PRIVATE property is a whole different animal.
While this may be an excellent idea on paper, the whole body camera ID has very clear limitations.
Perfect example - watch this video first - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7At5RyV_yo - make observations and conclusions. Good shoot? Bad Shoot? Throw the cops in jail or give them a medal?
Then watch the second video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPEiRQoALcs - Same situation, different camera angle, were your observations correct?
There is also the giant elephant in the room that no one wants to talk about - cost.
Aw snap, you mean dems cameras don't tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth all the time????
Voodoo_Man
10-08-14, 10:24
Millions of dollars?? The tax payer already has to pay millions of dollars when the victims of raids gone wrong receive a multi-million dollar wrongful death settlement. Certainly isn't coming out of the officer's pocket. (unless of course your city has a "cap" on these settlements. Then $400K for killing a family member isn't so bad.)
GoPro Hero - $399.
Contour Camera - $199
A big question in the OP - did police announce themselves or not? I know for a fact a $400 Go pro would make that plain as day.
Edit* - I just watched this, and right off the bat this is not a perfect example. High speed chase turned into assault on a cop =/= no knock home invasion. Your example here has already committed a crime and endangered the lives of officers and other drivers on the road. IMO the kid gloves come off and you use force. Shooting a man defending his PRIVATE property is a whole different animal.
Sure the camera's cost a few bucks, how about infrastructure to keep all that "evidence" for years? How about the salary for the tech's to make sure it all works? How about the salary of the techs or training the officers who will be in charge if the "evidence handling" ? Millions on top of millions.
You are oversimplifying an extremely complicated situation. If it was as easy as you say, I'd have a go pro attached to my PC at work, but I am not allowed to because of legal and PD considerations.
Again, the video was not to primary show a situation in reference to the OP, it was to show a very small snippet of how and why cameras are not the be all, end all for LE.
TAZ- You are taking a quote out of context. You conveniently left out the question you asked to which I answered. You asked if there were times when there is no other options to catch drug dealers than by brute force. You were not asking about this specific incident which is in question, which I did not answer to which you are applying my response to. If you would slow down and read some of my posts where I have commented on how some teams are going away from a lot of no knock type warrants or at a minimum changing the way they do things. THIS IS NOT A BAD THING. Slow your roll TAZ. I'm am FOR, not against having hoops to jump through for no knock warrants. The only mentality I'm defending is one of to go by facts not assumptions. Not sure why you chose my post for your rant but whatever.
I'm not sure if you have a bone to pick with what I said or if you're caught up in the us vs them thing.
Apologies for the rant and for sounding like I'm picking a bone with you. Was not my intent. Also don't have much of an us vs them mentality AFAIK. I tend to be very supportive of LEO that do a good job. I also tend to be very critical of all people who screw up. Myself included.
On the topic of force escalation I'm pretty consistent. We should have a very valid reason when we choose to escalate force. Dynamic entries and SWAT tactics, when used in situations where there is no known imminent violent threat or violent history are a choice to escalate force. There may be valid reason for the choice and everyone from the guy signing the warrant to the guys kicking in the door need to understand why they are doing what they are doing. Risking people's lives and reputations requires solid justification.
Millions of dollars??
GoPro Hero - $399.
Contour Camera - $199
If estimates on number of Federal LEO in the US is correct, 120,000 full time officers carrying weapons and authorized to make arrests, one Contour (as it is the cheaper option) per officer is 23,880,000 dollars.
State and local LE agencies total around 1.1 million, so you can do the math.
If you want that level of accountability, it will be a very costly affair. And that is solely for the hardware.
Apologies for the rant and for sounding like I'm picking a bone with you. Was not my intent. Also don't have much of an us vs them mentality AFAIK. I tend to be very supportive of LEO that do a good job. I also tend to be very critical of all people who screw up. Myself included.
On the topic of force escalation I'm pretty consistent. We should have a very valid reason when we choose to escalate force. Dynamic entries and SWAT tactics, when used in situations where there is no known imminent violent threat or violent history are a choice to escalate force. There may be valid reason for the choice and everyone from the guy signing the warrant to the guys kicking in the door need to understand why they are doing what they are doing. Risking people's lives and reputations requires solid justification.
I just want to make a quick observation, and that is to not forget that not every situation that ends up with police using deadly force is a screw up. Intent is very hard to determine. Suspects or others who police interact with also have an effect on how the situation develops.
Voodoo_Man
10-08-14, 11:43
I just want to make a quick observation, and that is to not forget that not every situation that ends up with police using deadly force is a screw up. Intent is very hard to determine. Suspects or others who police interact with also have an effect on how the situation develops.
They have the effect on how the situation develops. It is extremely rare that you see or hear about a LEO that shot someone before that person drew a weapon or fired at them, at least legally anyway (re; SC trooper) Sure, plenty of situations where LEO's point guns at people after they do something quickly or make motions that make a LEO's spidey sense go ape shit.
Intent is always an issue which the anti-police crowd seem to never be able to overcome, rightly so, since it does not exist the vast majority of the time. A LEO rarely wakes up in the morning say he is going to kill someone he has never come in contact with prior to that day - yet those accusations occur (re; furgeson).
skijunkie55
10-08-14, 11:50
If estimates on number of Federal LEO in the US is correct, 120,000 full time officers carrying weapons and authorized to make arrests, one Contour (as it is the cheaper option) per officer is 23,880,000 dollars.
State and local LE agencies total around 1.1 million, so you can do the math.
If you want that level of accountability, it will be a very costly affair. And that is solely for the hardware.
First three articles on google relating to settlements against police.
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/crime/headlines/20140510-lawsuits-against-dallas-police-costing-city-millions.ece
"Since 2011, the Dallas City Council has approved 10 six-figure settlements or verdicts for lawsuits against the police department, according to city records. Those payouts have added up to about $6 million."
http://www.post-gazette.com/local/city/2014/07/23/Pittsburgh-police-lawsuit-settlements-pile-up/stories/201407220200
"City council approved a $115,000 payment Tuesday to settle a lawsuit alleging a city police officer fabricated a case for charges, later dismissed, that landed a woman in jail for five days."
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/union-chief-city-adopt-no-settle-policy-article-1.1956680
The News also reported previously that the number of claims against the NYPD doubled over the past decade, to a record high of 9,570 filed in 2012. The suits cost taxpayers more than $1 billion during the 10-year period. Last year suits against the NYPD cost the city $96.3 million, and settlement numbers are trending upward this year.
Maybe it should be evaluated on a city by city basis... Some departments could certainly use it. Not saying it is the only solution to these types of incidents, but you'd think an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure...
And about the overall costs of maintaining the database, training, etc.- the reason it would be millions upon millions is inflated government contracts. Private sector can do that same thing better for half.
Voodoo_Man
10-08-14, 11:57
And about the overall costs of maintaining the database, training, etc.- the reason it would be millions upon millions is inflated government contracts. Private sector can do that same thing better for half.
Sounds like you have a great business idea, do it, save the taxpayers some money.
skijunkie55
10-08-14, 12:06
Sounds like you have a great business idea, do it, save the taxpayers some money.
But politicians.... That's why we can't have nice things :(
Oh well. That concludes my contributions to the thread. To the LEO who are active here and involved in making their communities better places, thank you. I sincerely wish it were easier and safer for you to do your jobs without having to deal with a lot of the BS situations mentioned in this thread. People just need to use common sense and be accountable for their own actions. Sucks that this is the world we live in, and unfortunately I don't see it getting better anytime soon.
If estimates on number of Federal LEO in the US is correct, 120,000 full time officers carrying weapons and authorized to make arrests, one Contour (as it is the cheaper option) per officer is 23,880,000 dollars.
State and local LE agencies total around 1.1 million, so you can do the math.
If you want that level of accountability, it will be a very costly affair. And that is solely for the hardware.
I agree that its a lot of money. It is probably worth doing, none the less.
To quibble with your math:
1) lets start with a bulk purchase - not full boat retail.
2) lets start with patrol only - even smaller - lets start with departments under DOJ oversight or with a history of questionable use of force. - Much smaller.
3) you can back up these devices wirelessly to the cloud. Storage is virtually free. Retain for 30 days and then delete if no retention is needed. You can get a terabyte of storage in the cloud for nothing or next to nothing. Hell you could sync it to the PC in the cars in a protected file for not a lot.
4) There are some huge privacy concerns associated with body cams and that will need to be worked out. There also needs to be a restriction on use of them in front of juries or disciplinary processes. The jury should not be able to go frame by frame. They should have to watch and decide like the officer.
I do find it interesting that departments have budgets to maintain Bear Cats, APCs, and drones but they don't have budget to deploy a wireless device that every stoner snow boarder manages to work with just fine.
The "complex and expensive" argument being used is the same as was used for dash cams. Its not just about accountability, it also can protect good officers from bad accusations.
Voodoo_Man
10-08-14, 13:03
I agree that its a lot of money. It is probably worth doing, none the less.
To quibble with your math:
1) lets start with a bulk purchase - not full boat retail.
2) lets start with patrol only - even smaller - lets start with departments under DOJ oversight or with a history of questionable use of force. - Much smaller.
3) you can back up these devices wirelessly to the cloud. Storage is virtually free. Retain for 30 days and then delete if no retention is needed. You can get a terabyte of storage in the cloud for nothing or next to nothing. Hell you could sync it to the PC in the cars in a protected file for not a lot.
4) There are some huge privacy concerns associated with body cams and that will need to be worked out. There also needs to be a restriction on use of them in front of juries or disciplinary processes. The jury should not be able to go frame by frame. They should have to watch and decide like the officer.
I do find it interesting that departments have budgets to maintain Bear Cats, APCs, and drones but they don't have budget to deploy a wireless device that every stoner snow boarder manages to work with just fine.
The "complex and expensive" argument being used is the same as was used for dash cams. Its not just about accountability, it also can protect good officers from bad accusations.
1) bulk purchases would not be Contours or Go Pro's they would the Taser AXON-type which is designed specifically for LEO's - the price you see is what you get (I already inquired, nearly zero discount unless 1000+ units ordered)
2) "questionable use of force" is extremely subjective and may not mean exactly what you believe it means (if you are thinking about those PD's that get media attention). That number is still in the 10,000 officer range in the US.
3) Wireless is an awesome idea, how about to charge them? Storage is most definitely NOT free, who pays for the rack space? The hardware? Security for the "cloud?" 30 days is absolutely not acceptable, more like 2 years minimum. Some of these cases do not come to light until years later - evidence needs to be preserved and guess what happens sometimes, no one knows that video is needed until the subpeona's show up. By the way you need officers/techs in charge of all this stuff, and the larger the PD the larger the amount of people needed.
4) Privacy concerns are important, correct, but not as serious as you may believe. I do not know if you can cite case law/precedent in reference to video from body cameras but what happens with the video is completely at the mercy of the lawyers.
Bear Cats, APCs an drone are either given or at a VERY reduced price from the gov. Even then their upkeep is not nearly as difficult as body cameras.
Dash Cameras and body worn cameras are two totally different animals. Dash cameras have a very long history of issues - ask any LEO that uses them, they also do not require as much upkeep as body cameras as they are mounted in a vehicle which can support them by power and memory.
I do find it interesting that departments have budgets to maintain Bear Cats, APCs, and drones but they don't have budget to deploy a wireless device that every stoner snow boarder manages to work with just fine. .
Well that's because the Feds basically give that shit away. Also you've got to realize that most PD's are running with the bare minimum I.T. personnel as it is. You want to double the I.T. work load, including server load, and expect it not to be that big of a deal? Our MDT's barely work half the time, and the in car cams suck ass.....I would suspect the body cameras would as well. Also how in the hell would you activate a gopro body cam????? Just have it on all shift??? So you want to record piss and shit breaks? I have to sit in silence since anything I say is going to be recorded? How would you wear it? You realize we already wear about 30lbs of gear right? Vests already make it almost impossible to do simple physical tasks, you think a camera is going to help?
Its very easy for someone to just start throwing out demands, especially when they have no idea how those demands would be implemented or the effects they would have on the individual. But I guess that stuff doesn't matter.
skijunkie55
10-08-14, 15:22
Well that's because the Feds basically give that shit away. Also you've got to realize that most PD's are running with the bare minimum I.T. personnel as it is. You want to double the I.T. work load, including server load, and expect it not to be that big of a deal? Our MDT's barely work half the time, and the in car cams suck ass.....I would suspect the body cameras would as well. Also how in the hell would you activate a gopro body cam????? Just have it on all shift??? So you want to record piss and shit breaks? I have to sit in silence since anything I say is going to be recorded? How would you wear it? You realize we already wear about 30lbs of gear right? Vests already make it almost impossible to do simple physical tasks, you think a camera is going to help?
Its very easy for someone to just start throwing out demands, especially when they have no idea how those demands would be implemented or the effects they would have on the individual. But I guess that stuff doesn't matter.
IT work load - Do you know how to take pictures off a memory card? Create a folder on a desktop and drag and drop files? Older cops might have a hard time with the tech side of things. Takes me about 2.5 minutes to download and store a ski / hunting video from mine, and that's when I can't find the cord to plug in...
How to activate? Button on the top of it, blue tooth control, etc. Not very difficult. I do it with ski gloves and goggles on all the time.
Where to wear it? Right on your chest rig / plate carrier or helmet. Entry teams typically have one or the other (and this is where they should be used.)
Weight? 7 ounces at most.
I'm just saying, it's pretty damn easy to operate. You might not agree as you have a certain way you want things to be handled. I would personally rather take an extra ten minutes a day to equip one of these than spend years in prison because of lack of evidence to support my version of the events.
edit - speaking of IT server load I cannot complete a post without the forum yelling at me to save my life. stupid windows prompts!
I just want to make a quick observation, and that is to not forget that not every situation that ends up with police using deadly force is a screw up. Intent is very hard to determine. Suspects or others who police interact with also have an effect on how the situation develops.
Very good point. At this stage I am certain as possible that the vast majority of the raids go well and aside from people being scared shitless ends with little real world damage. That still does not change the fact the there are cases out there where innocent people are hurt, and killed. We even have situations in which cops are killed. The point most are trying to make, is that there needs to be more thought and oversight in place to eliminate hurting the wrong people.
They have the effect on how the situation develops. It is extremely rare that you see or hear about a LEO that shot someone before that person drew a weapon or fired at them, at least legally anyway (re; SC trooper) Sure, plenty of situations where LEO's point guns at people after they do something quickly or make motions that make a LEO's spidey sense go ape shit.
Intent is always an issue which the anti-police crowd seem to never be able to overcome, rightly so, since it does not exist the vast majority of the time. A LEO rarely wakes up in the morning say he is going to kill someone he has never come in contact with prior to that day - yet those accusations occur (re; furgeson).
Without getting into the full debate, as a local it's worth pointing out:
Georgia is a castle doctrine state, and many chose to exercise that right. Specifically, it allows homeowners who have a "reasonable fear" that their life is in threat to engage intruders in their home.
Home Invasions while not common, are certainly not rare in the area.
No-knock dynamic entries are effectively legal home invasions with little time for the homeowner to assess who is who. Especially with the trend to have 6 officers all yelling, flash bangs, etc.
The trend for non-traditional uniforms, tatts, etc make it harder to tell criminals from LEO. Seems like we had less problems of this nature when there were clear "POLICE" ID panels, etc.
Most GA residents I know are not surprised that the individual grabbed a shotgun when his wife said there are people with guns out on the lawn. We'd do the same!
It would be completely different if I saw uniformed LEO with squad cars, or even a bearcat... But shadowy figures with long arms at night? No clear signs of LEO???
As to the defense of the local PD.... you have to understand:
Just a couple of hours north of this event we had a very notorious no-knock killing with subsequent cover-up. You may have forgotten Katheryn Johnston, but we have not.
She was not alone, recently we had another CI based no-knock go bad with flash-bang landing in a crib with a baby. And yes, the target individual did not live there.
Add to that the student killed in his bedroom by a sniper, many more.
What most of these have in common is CI based info on a fairly mild drug charge which was not fully vetted. And when the victim is killed, there is only one opinion.
Add to that the significant increase in funding for SRT/SWAT/dynamic training & equipment for podunk PD's. My first thought on the flash bang incident was questioning why Cornelia GA needed flash bangs and an SRT. Same thought most of us had with the Cherokee County Sniper killing the HS student.... "Cherokee County needs a sniper team????"
I am in favor of LEO having the tools to do their job. I am not in favor of those significantly increased capabilities being misapplied... with greater power has to come greater accountability. I'm starting to see a trend and a problem.
In the sniper case... Cherokee county could go 10-20 years without needing a sniper. Is it an accident that the sniper took a shot at a kid that was not threatening anyone but himself? No other LEO or bystanders in sight? Sniper claims he heard a pop and that the kid appeared to be pointing the pistol their way. Forensics did not support that claim. The parents were worried for their kid's safety and called the police. And said "If we had known they were going to come shoot him we would have never called". Just like the nursing home staff said after the old man was shot because the dynamic entry team thought his cane was a shotgun. And, And, And...
I do see a greater need in large metro areas, and fully support dynamic entry for hardened criminals, etc. But not for CI based arrest on misdemeanor drug charges.
No-Knocks and SRT/SWAT may be working in your state, but they are starting to be a concern in GA. There is movement in the State senate to put tighter standards in place for their usage.
I don't fear LEO, know they have a hard job, and want them to be successful. But I do worry a bit about this trend, along with the illegal push to search vehicles in traffic stops without PC, and non-judicial seizures.
That still does not change the fact the there are cases out there where innocent people are hurt, and killed. We even have situations in which cops are killed. The point most are trying to make, is that there needs to be more thought and oversight in place to eliminate hurting the wrong people.
I really think this is the core concern... is appropriate planning, investigation, and oversight in place.
Will confess, I was a bit shocked to hear the "Well, he was probably guilty, it all worked out" tone in this thread from some. Same in the Wal-mart thread.
If a profession's techniques start routinely harming uninvolved bystanders and killing suspects before trial who have not threatened the police or others, there needs to be some examination. Physicans have the 'First, do no harm' aspect.... We've had to deal with this in high speed chases. I suspect we will see similar with SWAT/SRT/Dynamic techniques.
The victim may be guilty of misdemeanor or even felony, but we'll never know now. His right to trial was terminated by a badly planned & executed raid. The raid failed, Own the outcome...
If he was guilty, he managed to outsmart many more agencies than his local SO... apparently he had federal level clearances involving detailed background checks. Certainly 10-20x more credibility than the CI.
Another twist... the oversight would come from the GBI. GBI initiated a warrant against the deceased victim for "aggregarious assault of an officer" or something like that shortly after he died. Allegations are that they proceeded with an assumption of guilt by the victim even though to date no evidence has surfaced to support that. There are concerns of collusion due to the nature of the small municipality department. It would not be the first time a small agency colluded. Some are pushing for FBI involvement based on the initial response of the GBI.
I don't have an easy answer. There are other areas I'd trust the Sheriff or DA without much difficulty. But having been in the city/county this event occured in, and living in the region, I don't have much confidence in the bubba sheriff to handle the internal investigation.
I do not expect clarity will be found... it will be the widow's word against multiple officers. Unless they get caught colluding, or forensics do not support their story I predict there will be minimal followup. Just like there was for the baby maimed for life in the flash-bang botched raid.
Well that's because the Feds basically give that shit away. Also you've got to realize that most PD's are running with the bare minimum I.T. personnel as it is. You want to double the I.T. work load, including server load, and expect it not to be that big of a deal? Our MDT's barely work half the time, and the in car cams suck ass.....I would suspect the body cameras would as well. Also how in the hell would you activate a gopro body cam????? Just have it on all shift??? So you want to record piss and shit breaks? I have to sit in silence since anything I say is going to be recorded? How would you wear it? You realize we already wear about 30lbs of gear right? Vests already make it almost impossible to do simple physical tasks, you think a camera is going to help?
Its very easy for someone to just start throwing out demands, especially when they have no idea how those demands would be implemented or the effects they would have on the individual. But I guess that stuff doesn't matter.
Actually it does matter, and I value your experience and input. I am not a "type more/read less" person. You raise good points that would need to be thought out. Some PDs have implemented them, so there does appear to be a way of doing it that is technically and financially sustainable. If there is a tool that could protect officers from false accusations, increase the confidence of citizens in their police, and help drive out bad cops or good cops making bad decisions, then it is worth a conversation. We need to move beyond the police straight arming citizens who have suggestions and citizens making ridiculous demands on police, and find some common ground in the middle. The standing of your profession, and the safety of us all are at stake.
Voodoo_Man
10-08-14, 17:15
I'd like to point out that no one is against it.
Personally, I am totally for having the right equipment. But that is a very long way to go for most agencies. In my PD we are testing them out to see how they work and on a very small scale (like two or three dozen officers) and its a nightmare from what I understand. They are testing different types out, from the cheapest of the cheap to the higher end AXON style setups.
If you look at the first video you posted, I could not see a single thing that was going on in the beginning. The FPS sucked and it was way too dimly lit in order to see what was going on. I am sure the video helped in court, but realistically video's will be used for traffic stop complaints and that type of issue.
The other issue that is very rarely talked about is the fact that people still file complaints, knowing full well that their convo was recorded. Then when it is proven that they lied or they may even admit that they lied, IA does not press charges for false reports and the PD's normally (like mine) have policy that forbids us from filing civil suit against them. This is something that needs to be overcome if they want body cameras to be successfully accepted by the street officers.
NCPatrolAR
10-08-14, 17:26
http://www.laurenssheriff.net/sort.html
Was it this crew that served the warrant?
http://www.laurenssheriff.net/sort.html
Was it this crew that served the warrant?
Negative... that's SC... wrong state (OK, I think I see the problem!!! :) )
This is the SO:
http://www.lcsheriff.org/
Look at their UCR.... 2008: 1 murder arrest, 1 manslaughter, 1 rape..... real hotbed of crime. Have not checked recently, I'm sure it's up some. But this was on their website. It's a podunk middle GA town.
NCPatrolAR
10-08-14, 18:13
Negative... that's SC... wrong state (OK, I think I see the problem!!! :) )
This is the SO:
http://www.lcsheriff.org/
Look at their UCR.... 2008: 1 murder arrest, 1 manslaughter, 1 rape..... real hotbed of crime. Have not checked recently, I'm sure it's up some. But this was on their website. It's a podunk middle GA town.
Thanks
I was dealing with a screaming infant and missed that my link was for a SC agency
I hate getting into these discussions because there is so much emotion involved. But I can't help but point some things out.
1. Over the years violent crime has gone down dramatically while the use of SWAT tactics has risen like the global whiners hockey stick. I'm not going to link to the stats, but they are there.
2. My understanding is that police shootings during warrants did not rise significantly to justify the massively increased use of SWAT while serving warrants. Instead, once SWAT teams were formed they were used more. My guess is that the increased use of SWAT was a way to justify increased budgets. Then came 9-11 and funds became available that might have driven the increased use of military tactics.
3. My feeling is that over time the space for what is acceptable behavior by police has increased mainly because of the lawyers and unions. And at this point we are starting to see a backlash because in many peoples eyes the accepted behavior of police has crossed a line. I would urge police departments to take this seriously. Public opinion will sooner or later reach a point where police will lose political backing. Most of the public doesn't follow or know about some of these questionable shootings, but there is a tipping point.
4. I think many Americans would rather see possible loss of evidence (Especially in drug cases) than the possible shooting or injuring of a single innocent person. If the warrant is served the police come in and evidence is lost, it is much easier for the Police to say, "We safely served a warrant to a location where we reasonably believe there were drugs." than, "We made an arrest for a few grams of meth, but we blew a babies face off while serving the warrant."
5. I want the police to be effective and safe, but I want them to have the same level of concern for the public as they do for themselves. Sometimes it appears that some LE forget that.
6. There is a tendency in this thread to say, "Well it is the upper level folks who sent SWAT out that should be blamed." No, someone had to pull the trigger. But as long as the cop can legally pull the trigger on a kid who happens to answer his door with his BB gun in his hand this will continue to happen.
Sure the camera's cost a few bucks, how about infrastructure to keep all that "evidence" for years? How about the salary for the tech's to make sure it all works? How about the salary of the techs or training the officers who will be in charge if the "evidence handling" ? Millions on top of millions.
You are oversimplifying an extremely complicated situation. If it was as easy as you say, I'd have a go pro attached to my PC at work, but I am not allowed to because of legal and PD considerations.
Again, the video was not to primary show a situation in reference to the OP, it was to show a very small snippet of how and why cameras are not the be all, end all for LE.
it would seem that body cameras and all associated costs to be used just for raids, no-knocks, etc., would be far less costly than equipping an entire force, and it can be shown there is great need for this...
I wanted to give some info on the body cameras. My department has been testing the Taser models out for some time now. After the initial testing of selected individual officers we have implemented it for one whole squad area, so thats 6 squads or roughly 60-70 officers.
A couple buddies of mine on my squad were part of the initial testing group. The main problem I have seen has been durability. Jumping walls, wrestling the meth head who doesnt want to go to jail, tree branches snagging wires, etc. Of the three guys I know that had them for testing, two broke. Another problem is storage. All video will have to be stored for years. Its not uncommon to go to trial a couple years after an arrest. My department has roughly 1100 patrol officers. Storing the amount of video they would produce is insanely expensive. The technology definitely needs to mature more.
Cameras are the future for LE. Im definitely not against it though. Look at the incidents in LA with the Hollywood chick and the Firefighter in Oakland. Both of those officers butts were saved by video showing the complaints were full of shit.
I hate getting into these discussions because there is so much emotion involved. But I can't help but point some things out.
1. Over the years violent crime has gone down dramatically while the use of SWAT tactics has risen like the global whiners hockey stick. I'm not going to link to the stats, but they are there.
2. My understanding is that police shootings during warrants did not rise significantly to justify the massively increased use of SWAT while serving warrants. Instead, once SWAT teams were formed they were used more. My guess is that the increased use of SWAT was a way to justify increased budgets. Then came 9-11 and funds became available that might have driven the increased use of military tactics.
3. My feeling is that over time the space for what is acceptable behavior by police has increased mainly because of the lawyers and unions. And at this point we are starting to see a backlash because in many peoples eyes the accepted behavior of police has crossed a line. I would urge police departments to take this seriously. Public opinion will sooner or later reach a point where police will lose political backing. Most of the public doesn't follow or know about some of these questionable shootings, but there is a tipping point.
4. I think many Americans would rather see possible loss of evidence (Especially in drug cases) than the possible shooting or injuring of a single innocent person. If the warrant is served the police come in and evidence is lost, it is much easier for the Police to say, "We safely served a warrant to a location where we reasonably believe there were drugs." than, "We made an arrest for a few grams of meth, but we blew a babies face off while serving the warrant."
5. I want the police to be effective and safe, but I want them to have the same level of concern for the public as they do for themselves. Sometimes it appears that some LE forget that.
6. There is a tendency in this thread to say, "Well it is the upper level folks who sent SWAT out that should be blamed." No, someone had to pull the trigger. But as long as the cop can legally pull the trigger on a kid who happens to answer his door with his BB gun in his hand this will continue to happen.
Good points though I must say #3 is debatable. Ive heard from several old guys that there is MUCH more accountability these days that 20+ years ago. Guys are getting fired now for things that in the early 90s wouldnt have even generated paperwork.
Also when the term SWAT is used by the media you have to take it with a grain of salt. Im a standard patrolman who wears a blue polyester uniform with a big shiny metal badge. However almost every time I pull out my 6920 Im called SWAT by citizens.
Voodoo_Man
10-14-14, 14:34
@scottsbad, you bring up good points, some of which are easily refuted with the overabundance of evidence to the contrary. For example the amount of kids that get shot versus the amount of warrants served, each year, does not raise the need for the level of restriction and accountability people seem to be asking for. Of course there is accountability, a full investigation and there is a reason many swat officers get charged because warrant service is not free reign to go select fire. If the response is, "but if it saves one life!" Then you might be on the wrong forum, democraticuunderground probably doesnt resemble this place. Thats not a dig and I am not trying to piss on what you said, I am trying to point out that this is dangerous stuff and accidents happen.
The one thing I have an issue with is #6. I hate to be the ass that says it, but unless you are in the shoes of the street officer, the shoes of the swat officer, the shoes of the officer that has to follow some insane policy because some old timer of a boss thinks its a great idea, you will not be able to understand. Sure there are some knee jerk reactions that are blamed on top brass, I agree. The concepts and policies relating to swat opetations and how that info is passed along is controlled by the top brass not the swat officers. Only in the movies do you see swat officers doing investigative work and then doing the warrant service themselves, that does not happen in the real world, and it wont change until there are different, younger, leaders at the helm.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.