MP Iraq Vet Charged by Police. [Archive]

View Full Version : MP Iraq Vet Charged by Police.

Irish

06-26-09, 16:46

This is not a slam on LEO but it does make my blood boil that this BS is happening. Police raid the wrong house and then charge an MP fresh home from Iraq with BS charges. WTF?!?! What are your thoughts on the matter?

http://www.newschannel5.com/Global/story.asp?S=9915358

Men Face Charges After Police Raid Wrong House

Posted: Feb 26, 2009 08:05 PM PST

MURFREESBORO, Tenn. - A father and son are furious after surviving a terrifying experience. They face criminal charges after police responded to their home by mistake.

Murfreesboro officers responded to a 911 emergency call and somehow ended up at the wrong apartment.

Roger and Justin Chilton woke to a pounding on their door at 3 a.m. Sunday. Justin - a decorated military policeman who had just returned from Iraq - answered the door holding his gun.

The officers then arrested Justin and his father.

"They held us at gunpoint, slammed us to the ground, stomped my hands and butted me in the back of the head with a shotgun," said Justin.

The officers charged the Chilton's with resisting arrest and aggravated assault for the incident.

Police did not drop the charges even after learning they responded to the wrong house.

Murfreesboro police chief Glenn Chrisman has opened an internal investigation.

Heavy Metal

06-26-09, 16:49

Irish

06-26-09, 16:51

A little more research in to the matter.

http://www.examiner.com/x-536-Civil-Liberties-Examiner~y2009m3d9-Cops-press-charges-against-men-who-scared-them

http://www.murfreesboropost.com/news.php?viewStory=15932

Iraqgunz

06-26-09, 16:52

Assuming that this story is true someone seriously screwed up. Reminds me alot of the incident that happened in Maryland with the mayor of a town.

Irish

06-26-09, 16:54

Assuming that this story is true someone seriously screwed up. Reminds me alot of the incident that happened in Maryland with the mayor of a town.

I would assume it's true after reading multiple news stories about it. At least they didn't have any dogs to shoot.

NCPatrolAR

06-26-09, 17:11

I would assume it's true after reading multiple news stories about it. At least they didn't have any dogs to shoot.

Sounds like everyone on scene is at fault.

Irish

06-26-09, 17:16

Sounds like everyone on scene is at fault.

In my eyes the 2 other links I provided give a much clearer picture of what went down.

This 1 is a little anti-cop but there are some valid points: http://www.examiner.com/x-536-Civil-Liberties-Examiner~y2009m3d9-Cops-press-charges-against-men-who-scared-them

This 1 seems to be a little more factual: http://www.murfreesboropost.com/news.php?viewStory=15932

How would you react? In my mind might be possible home invasion. At 3am and without me calling the police I'm going to the door armed as well.

NCPatrolAR

06-26-09, 17:32

In my eyes the 2 other links I provided give a much clearer picture of what went down.

This 1 is a little anti-cop but there are some valid points: http://www.examiner.com/x-536-Civil-Liberties-Examiner~y2009m3d9-Cops-press-charges-against-men-who-scared-them

This 1 seems to be a little more factual: http://www.murfreesboropost.com/news.php?viewStory=15932

I read all 3 of the links you posted, thats why I made the comments I did.

How would you react? In my mind might be possible home invasion. At 3am and without me calling the police I'm going to the door armed as well.

Impossible to answer without being there and knowing exactly what happened. Generally, if the police have identified themselves several times and you point a gun at them anyways you are going to get charged.

glockem

06-26-09, 17:46

Sounds like everyone on scene is at fault.

How is everyone on scene at fault, or are you referring to the LEOs only? If someone beats on my door at 0330, then I'll answer with a gun in hand also. Just because someone says that are LEO doesn't make it true. Several reported crimes have begun with people claiming to be the police.

It looks like the kid opened the door with the pistol pointed out the door so he was prepared defend himself if it wasn't the police. Once he saw that they really were police officers, he closed the door and lost the pistol. That's not the approach I would take, but I don't think it is beyond his rights of self defense/preservation in his own home at 0330. He asked them to step away from the door twice and they didn't.

Personally, I would have left them standing outside my door while I phoned 911 to confirm who they were (I'd be covering the door the entire time), but techniques differ. Filing charges here is definitely wrong. How can you be publicly intoxicated in your own home? What happened to "Serve and Protect"?

NCPatrolAR

06-26-09, 17:54

As I said EVERYONE on scene is at fault. I find the MP's story not entirely credible due to the claim of being butt-stroked. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle of everyone's tale

Irish

06-26-09, 17:56

Filing charges here is definitely wrong. How can you be publicly intoxicated in your own home? What happened to "Serve and Protect"?
I agree with much of what you posted. Their argument is that he is only 20 years old, I say **** that! He's a decorated MP who just got back from Iraq and is in his own place with his father having a few minding their own business.
Old enough to vote, old enough to die for your country, old enough to drink in my eyes. I have and will always continue to buy a beer for any Sailor, Soldier, Airman or Marine that I see regardless of their age.

chadbag

06-26-09, 17:58

Zhurdan

06-26-09, 18:00

If someone beats on my door at 0330, then I'll answer with a gun in hand also. Just because someone says that are LEO doesn't make it true. Several reported crimes have begun with people claiming to be the police.

Call me Simple Simon here, but I'd have looked out a window to see who it was rather than OPEN THE DOOR. I've yet to see a house that doesn't have a window or five near the front of the house. Besides, opening the door negates any benefit it may have held if there were people impersonating police officers. Or simply pick up the phone, call dispatch and ask if they've sent police to your home. Pretty simple. (Ask me how I know about calling dispatch when they show up to your house. *hint* It has happened to me.)

Irish

06-26-09, 18:03

Call me Simple Simon here, but I'd have looked out a window to see who it was rather than OPEN THE DOOR. I've yet to see a house that doesn't have a window or five near the front of the house. Besides, opening the door negates any benefit it may have held if there were people impersonating police officers. Or simply pick up the phone, call dispatch and ask if they've sent police to your home. Pretty simple. (Ask me how I know about calling dispatch when they show up to your house. *hint* It has happened to me.)

It was an apartment and I've seen many without windows on the side of the front door entrance. A phone call probably would've been the smartest thing to do but at 3am and somebody's pounding on the front door...

Zhurdan

06-26-09, 18:10

It was an apartment and I've seen many without windows on the side of the front door entrance. A phone call probably would've been the smartest thing to do but at 3am and somebody's pounding on the front door...

Not to derail this, but does it really take people that long to shake off the fog of sleep? Someone pounding on my door (or a deer tipping over a workbench in the yard, yeah that happened when I was building my deck) gets me out of bed and alert in about 5 seconds. Already waking the wife with one hand and grabbing the pistol with the other.

I think that he was just back from Iraq probably has more to do with how the MP dealth with the situation than anything else. He probably over reacted, and the introduction of the pistol into the officers faces changed the dynamics ten fold. If they'd showed up there and he didn't have a gun, they most likely would have overlooked the drinking once they realized they were at the wrong address.

NCPatrolAR

06-26-09, 18:11

Could have been a shoe or boot. When you are face down you make your best guess at what it was.

he could have simply said "I was hit in the head" as opposed to saying he was hit with a shotgun. Claims such as those (hit with a shotgun) are common and are a reason my BS meter is pinging

Irish

06-26-09, 18:14

he could have simply said "I was hit in the head" as opposed to saying he was hot with a shotgun. Claims such as those (hit with a shotgun) are common and are a reason my BS meter is pinging

The Thin Blue Line has my BS meter pinging too! Charges of resisting arrest and aggravated assault against an LEO are BS charges brought up on people all the time. The charges were most likely brought up to cover their asses since they went to the wrong place and did the wrong thing.

m4fun

06-26-09, 19:00

The Thin Blue Line has my BS meter pinging too!
Me too! Charges get dropped or overtruned and some lawyer will be collecting 20% or more from a suit.

SHIVAN

06-26-09, 19:11

The Thin Blue Line...

Using this phrase, in the context you did, will not fly on this forum. Please turn it down a few notches and discuss this like mature adults. Thanks.

NCPatrolAR

06-26-09, 19:52

The Thin Blue Line has my BS meter pinging too! Charges of resisting arrest and aggravated assault against an LEO are BS charges brought up on people all the time. The charges were most likely brought up to cover their asses since they went to the wrong place and did the wrong thing.

Those charges are typically appropriate.

In this case they were probably applicable also since it appears alcohol was in the mix

JSandi

06-26-09, 20:01

Tennessee law for resisting arrest...

39-16-602. Resisting stop, frisk, halt, arrest or search — Prevention or obstruction of service of legal writ or process. —

(a) It is an offense for a person to intentionally prevent or obstruct anyone known to the person to be a law enforcement officer, or anyone acting in a law enforcement officer's presence and at the officer's direction, from effecting a stop, frisk, halt, arrest or search of any person, including the defendant, by using force against the law enforcement officer or another.

(b) Except as provided in § 39-11-611, it is no defense to prosecution under this section that the stop, frisk, halt, arrest or search was unlawful.

(c) It is an offense for a person to intentionally prevent or obstruct an officer of the state or any other person known to be a civil process server in serving, or attempting to serve or execute, any legal writ or process.

(d) A violation of this section is a Class B misdemeanor unless the defendant uses a deadly weapon to resist the stop, frisk, halt, arrest, search or process server, in which event the violation is a Class A misdemeanor.

[Acts 1989, ch. 591, § 1; 1991, ch. 307, § 1; 1999, ch. 178, § 1.]

39-11-611. Self-defense. —

(a) As used in this section, unless the context otherwise requires:

(1) “Business” means a commercial enterprise or establishment owned by a person as all or part of the person's livelihood or is under the owner's control or who is an employee or agent of the owner with responsibility for protecting persons and property and shall include the interior and exterior premises of the business;

(2) “Curtilage” means the area surrounding a dwelling that is necessary, convenient and habitually used for family purposes and for those activities associated with the sanctity of a person's home;

(3) “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, that has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed for or capable of use by people;

(4) “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides, either temporarily or permanently, or is visiting as an invited guest, or any dwelling, building or other appurtenance within the curtilage of the residence; and

(5) “Vehicle” means any motorized vehicle that is self-propelled and designed for use on public highways to transport people or property.

(b) (1) Notwithstanding § 39-17-1322, a person who is not engaged in unlawful activity and is in a place where the person has a right to be has no duty to retreat before threatening or using force against another person when and to the degree the person reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force.

(2) Notwithstanding § 39-17-1322, a person who is not engaged in unlawful activity and is in a place where the person has a right to be has no duty to retreat before threatening or using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury, if:

(A) The person has a reasonable belief that there is an imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury;

(B) The danger creating the belief of imminent death or serious bodily injury is real, or honestly believed to be real at the time; and

(C) The belief of danger is founded upon reasonable grounds.

(c) Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury within a residence, business, dwelling or vehicle is presumed to have held a reasonable belief of imminent death or serious bodily injury to self, family, a member of the household or a person visiting as an invited guest, when that force is used against another person, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence, business, dwelling or vehicle, and the person using defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred.

(d) The presumption established in subsection (c) shall not apply, if:

(1) The person against whom the force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, business, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder; provided, that the person is not prohibited from entering the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle by an order of protection, injunction for protection from domestic abuse, or a court order of no contact against that person;

(2) The person against whom the force is used is attempting to remove a person or persons who is a child or grandchild of, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used;

(3) Notwithstanding § 39-17-1322, the person using force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, business, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or

(4) The person against whom force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in § 39-11-106, who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, business, residence, or vehicle in the performance of the officer's official duties, and the officer identified the officer in accordance with any applicable law, or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.

(e) The threat or use of force against another is not justified:

(1) If the person using force consented to the exact force used or attempted by the other individual;

(2) If the person using force provoked the other individual's use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless:

(A) The person using force abandons the encounter or clearly communicates to the other the intent to do so; and

(B) The other person nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the person; or

(3) To resist a halt at a roadblock, arrest, search, or stop and frisk that the person using force knows is being made by a law enforcement officer, unless:

(A) The law enforcement officer uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest, search, stop and frisk, or halt; and

(B) The person using force reasonably believes that the force is immediately necessary to protect against the law enforcement officer's use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.

[Acts 1989, ch. 591, § 1; 1990, ch. 1030, § 8; 2007, ch. 210, § 1; 2008, ch. 1012, § 1.]

JSandi

06-26-09, 20:04

Added for the purpose of discussion of applicable laws only

and my co workers wonder why I'm leaving LE for Law School...
:(

The_War_Wagon

06-26-09, 20:05

NCPatrolAR

06-26-09, 20:13

dbrowne1

06-26-09, 20:14

If the cops are lucky, they'll only lose their badge, their job, & their pension, and the town will only lose several million dollars. :mad:

If they're UN-lucky, they'll meet up with the MP in a dark alley... :eek:

If history is any guide, I highly doubt any of that will happen. Best case scenario for the MP is that the charges against him get dropped, the locality might settle for some meager amount, and one or more officers involved might get very minor discipline, probably not even any time off, for getting the address wrong (which was the only mistake they made).

If you look at it from the MP's perspective, yeah he got hosed. The cops screwed up, they never should have been there in the first place.

From the cops' perspective, they probably didn't know they were at the wrong apartment at the time and all they know is that some guy opens the door to them holding a gun. Hard to say they did anything wrong other than knocking on the wrong door.

ThirdWatcher

06-26-09, 20:35

Detective_D

06-26-09, 22:40

...and discuss this like mature adults. Thanks.

I dont see how we can really discuss it at all. News stories and accounts of one person involved kinda make it a little tough to talk about it.

If there is to be a discussion on the part of the officers being sent to the wrong address, it looks as though we have enough information to go on to do that. The police dept. took action against the dispatcher and the supervisor. Looks as if the problem was solved to me. If the persons involved feel that a suit is warranted, then by all means that is there right.

As far as the rest of the story.....I hold my opinion.
~D

mike240

06-26-09, 22:52

I agree on holding off for the rest of the story too. I will add that I try my best to be respectful and grateful to veterans that I may stop or otherwise have to deal with but I am also noticing more and more young servicemen that are anti LEO and act more like thugs than professionals or former professional soldiers. I know that this is a small percentage overall but those are the ones that standout. Like unprofessional cops...

Dunderway

06-27-09, 00:04

he could have simply said "I was hit in the head" as opposed to saying he was hit with a shotgun. Claims such as those (hit with a shotgun) are common and are a reason my BS meter is pinging

If that sends off your BS meter, then I honestly believe that you are probably a very oustanding officer and work at a department with fine brothers like yourself. I, on the other hand, grew up where I have witnessed this quite a few times...and night sticks, and batons, boots, fists, etc.

chadbag

06-27-09, 02:13

he could have simply said "I was hit in the head" as opposed to saying he was hit with a shotgun. Claims such as those (hit with a shotgun) are common and are a reason my BS meter is pinging

He may have honestly thought it was a shotgun, without having seen it. Maybe his experiences as an MP clouded his perception. To me the important thing is he claims to have been cuffed upside the head (my words, not his) with what he thought was a shotgun. If he was hit upside the head, it is immaterial if it was a shotgun, night stick, or boot. If he was not on the underhand hit, then it is also immaterial.

Anyway, seems to have been handled poorly by all involved.

hatt

06-27-09, 02:41

Premo charged his father, Roger Chilton, 51, of Meadow Court with public intoxication and resisting arrest.
Damn, that's a new one. Public intoxication in your own residence. :rolleyes:

And

possession of a firearm under age 21
Again, in his residence, under supervision, if it's even illegal for a 20 yo to be in possession of a handgun.

:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Make up a bunch of charges to cover your ass is what it looks like to me.

NCPatrolAR

06-27-09, 03:16

Damn, that's a new one. Public intoxication in your own residence. :rolleyes:

And

Again, in his residence, under supervision, if it's even illegal for a 20 yo to be in possession of a handgun.

:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Make up a bunch of charges to cover your ass is what it looks like to me.

There is a chance the public intoxication charge stemmed from actions inside the home; however I get the feeling they happened outside the residence (maybe while the residence was being searched fir additional weapons)

armakraut

06-27-09, 06:33

Is it too late for a handshake and an exchange of apologies?

EzGoingKev

06-27-09, 06:59

No one was hurt so IMO the charges against the MP and his father should have been dropped once it was determined the officers were dispatched to the wrong address at 3:30 in the morning. Even more so once it was learned the son was in the military and had just returned from Iraq.

There is a chance the public intoxication charge stemmed from actions inside the home; however I get the feeling they happened outside the residence (maybe while the residence was being searched fir additional weapons)
Just asking a question for my edification - if you are in the privacy of your own home, how can you be charged with public intoxication?

If it did stem from something that happened outside of the home, at that point they were most likely in a custodial situation and them being "in public" would not have been their choice either.

dbrowne1

06-27-09, 07:42

Just asking a question for my edification - if you are in the privacy of your own home, how can you be charged with public intoxication?

Pretty easily, at least where I live. If you're inside the house with the windows closed and the blinds drawn, it won't happen. But if you're in your doorway, or on your porch, or in your yard - and you are within the viewing and listening range of the public - then the courts (at least here) have said that you are "in public" for the purpose of the "drunk in public" law. The rationale is that the law is meant to prevent drunks from causing noise, disturbance, etc., and they could easily circumvent that if all they had to do was stay on private property.

Of course, it can still happen even if you're inside your closed up home, and the police come to your house by mistake or on a noise complaint. They knock on your door, you open it piss drunk and step out onto the porch to talk to them. It's one of those charges that would never get stuck on you in that situation unless you were falling over and belligerent, or you refused to turn the music down, etc. - but it's still there.

snipertn

06-27-09, 07:58

ZDL

06-27-09, 09:40

This story is true. I live less than 10 miles from where this incident happened. The man was in his own home and freely admitted that he had been drinking with his dad. Now I dont know about you, but depending on how much alcohol had been consumed, I don't think that you could be awake and alert in 5 seconds. To date, I believe that all charges have been dropped buy the dept. As I understand it the father and son have a lawsuit against the Dept.

What does your proximity to the incident have to with the validty of the story?

When I show up on 911 hang ups, I identify myself upon arrival and assessment of the situation. If I was met with a weapon and a belligerent unappologetic drunk dick head, wrong house or not, after I ID'd myself, I might be inclined to level some charges as well. None of us know what role the supervisor had in the filing of charges. None of us know the exact details of any part of the story.

I agree that perhaps a handshake and an apology from both parties at this point would be the best course of action based on what was printed.

This default "blame the cops" mentality is tired people. Everyone hates the news media until it appeals to their sympathies or prejudices. Funny how that works huh? :rolleyes: I expect better from the people on this forum.

FromMyColdDeadHand

06-27-09, 10:22

What does your proximity to the incident have to with the validty of the story?

I agree that perhaps a handshake and an apology from both parties at this point would be the best course of action based on what was printed.

This default "blame the cops" mentality is tired people. Everyone hates the news media until it appeals to their sympathies or prejudices. Funny how that works huh? :rolleyes: I expect better from the people on this forum.

1. Proximity may equate to more local coverage than we are finding on the net.

2. Handshake good, having a beer together might not be a good idea. ;)

3. These are man bites dog stories. It isn't that we jump to blame the cops, the fact that these stories hit the media means that there is usually something odd going on. That and while you may put yourself in shoes of the LEO, we put the ourselves in the shoes of the victim, with out all the baggage they bring.

As to 5 seconds at 3am, in under 5seconds I can think in caveman mode, it takes a bit longer to get fully human.

FMF_Doc

06-27-09, 11:30

as a former Officer I think most are quick to judge and always blame the cops/gov't/military whatever but in reality if you've never stared down the barrel of someone else's gun then you have no reference for how to react.

As a vet, I personally would have cut the guy some slack, drinking underage (so what, I did it a million times) his showing up with a gun, go spend a year in a combat zone.

ZDL

06-27-09, 12:53

1. Proximity may equate to more local coverage than we are finding on the net.

2. Handshake good, having a beer together might not be a good idea. ;)

3. These are man bites dog stories. It isn't that we jump to blame the cops, the fact that these stories hit the media means that there is usually something odd going on. That and while you may put yourself in shoes of the LEO, we put the ourselves in the shoes of the victim, with out all the baggage they bring.

As to 5 seconds at 3am, in under 5seconds I can think in caveman mode, it takes a bit longer to get fully human.

1. eh, a stretch imo.

2. ha

3. It is that people jump to blame cops. It's happening here, right now. Many other threads. Many other forums, bars, barber shops, restaurants, kitchen tables, and courtrooms around the US. I believe I'm fairly adept at putting myself in the citizens shoes considering I've been a citizen longer than I've been a LEO. I also believe I'm the first one to call a LEO out as evidence on this forum alone. Adults feel they are their own authority figure. They have a real hard time getting "talked to" by someone their tax dollars pay for. I can understand the mentality but Christ people, grow up. It's the way it is. You have the power to change it. Become a LEO yourself. Lobby for changes. Vote differently. Revolt. Anything but sit around and cast baseless blame on the entire profession. LEO's are already held to a higher standard, what more do you want? How many news stories a day are there about "bad cops"? 5? 10? 1,000? You know how many LEO's there are in America and of those LEOs how many citizen encounters go on? Keep it relative people. Most of this animosity stems from either direct contact via a traffic citation or sitting around listening to other morons talk about theirs.

Are there legitimate gripes and wrong doings concerning LEOs? ABSOLUTLY. Is the power the average LEO possess dangerous? ABSOLUTLY. But they are men, like most of you. Some good, some bad, some educated, some not, however, I would venture to say you will find far more good men in LE than otherwise. I've stated on here many times how to deal with an asshole in uniform.

I wouldn't be on my soapbox if I didn't respect the men on this forum. If I felt this place was full of nothing but retard douche bags, I wouldn't be wasting my breath. I believe the men on this forum for the most part to be fair minded and level headed. I think some of you simply get caught up in what is easy which is believe the media when it fits some underlying prejudice.

Bolt_Overide

06-27-09, 13:51

As I said EVERYONE on scene is at fault. I find the MP's story not entirely credible due to the claim of being butt-stroked. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle of everyone's tale

wrong, murfreesboro has had more officer related problems than any other smaller town PD that Ive ever heard of, that info btw comes from a damn good freind of mine that works there.

in his own words "They ****ed up, they know they ****ed up, and they cooked the charges up to give them something to deal with it later."

bkb0000

06-27-09, 14:35

pretty classic case of "Dickhead meets dickhead."

i don't see how it could have gone any other way.

sucks for the young MP- this will bring up questions when he applies at PD in a couple years.

hatt

06-27-09, 15:15

Here's why the cops get all picked on unfairly and blamed and such..

We do know the cops screwed up and were beating on the wrong door.

We don't know exactly what went down after the cops were beating on the door. One group's words again another group's word.

We do know for certain two citizens were minding their own business in their own home before the incident took place.

DragonDoc

06-27-09, 15:35

If the cops are lucky, they'll only lose their badge, their job, & their pension, and the town will only lose several million dollars. :mad:

If they're UN-lucky, they'll meet up with the MP in a dark alley... :eek:

They'll probably meet the whole platoon or company. If the kid is stationed at Fort Campbell and I were his First Sergeant, I'd have every NCO in the company meet me at the Police Station in uniform. There is nothing like a little solidarity to show that we are taking care of our soldiers. I'd drag JAG along as well as a civilian lawyer or two (one criminal and one civil). Now a good show of force would be to have everyone show up in dress uniform. It is one thing to say decorated but you don't understand until you see a man's chest with three or more rows of medals earned the hard way.

snipertn

06-27-09, 16:41

Yeah I guess your right. Having been in law enforcement myself I guess it is easy to blame the cops. I have friends on the department involved and maybe know a little more about what happened than you. I do know that when the dispatcher put out the location they were told to enter the complex and turn left. Everyone that was following the lead car (that turned right) would constitute the initial break down in communication. Hence the officers involved went to the wrong address resulting in the soldiers arrest as well as his dads. Not double checking to make sure that they were at the wrong address. This same thing happened a few years ago to a different department resulting in the death of the homeowner.

But what do I know. I guess yiour right, living in the proximity of the incident has nothing to do with anything......

ZDL

06-27-09, 17:40

KYPD

06-27-09, 21:18

We don't know the details of this incident, and will never them know unless the matter goes all the way to a public trial and we are permitted to view court records. But that won't happen.

What we do know is that LEO are given extraordinary powers. WE give them those powers because we need them to have those powers. But, in a decent community (i.e. not China), those special powers come with special responsibilities. One of those responsibilities is truthfully justifying what happened and living with the consequences. One of those consequences is getting jumped on by uninformed citizens when it appears those powers have been abused. If an officer can't take the heat, well, the kitchen has a door.

I would really hate to see the MP's comrades retaliate, even peacefully. Things need to run their course. When law enforcement abuses it's powers (or it is perceived to have abused it's power), and the law/courts turn a blind eye (or are perceived to have turned a blind eye), then eventually there is blood on the street. Remember the LA riots after the Rodney King verdict. As responsible men (versus unemployed welfare recipients looking for an excuse to loot, burn and murder), it's our duty to keep things calm until the law/courts have chance to examine the facts and act appropriately. If the law/courts don't do their duty, and local law enforcement continues abuses, then is the time for citizens to take direct action. That has happened several times in this country. Thank God the founding fathers insisted on the right of the citizens to bear arms. If you haven't yet, get "Unintended Consequences" by Ross and read it. Mandatory. It will put you off pork for a while, though.

http://www.amazon.com/Unintended-Consequences-John-Ross/dp/1888118040/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1246152247&sr=1-1

There is a lot of concern among responsible adults (meaning not the Hollywood liberals or politicians in Sacramento) about "no knock warrants," and the carnage that has resulted. A lot of innocent people killed. Too often LE is not seen as "protectors" but as "attackers" especially when they spend time on TV at live crime scenes and at public gatherings decked out in black kevlar and carrying submachine guns. Those tools have their place, but they create the appearance that the police are "killers" not "protectors."

http://www.cato.org/raidmap/

Some PD's (especially here in SoCal) are ever eager to go after so-called "drug dealers." Why? If convicted of being a drug dealer, the man's house, car, boat, RV, guns, jewelry, cash, stock, coins, and anything else that can be catalogued is subject to confiscation, and the PD gets a slice. Yummy!! So the PD feels it needs to be prepared to do QCB in quiet Laguna Beach, and the possible recovery justifies the cost. But by shifting from "protectors" to "attackers," and then aggravating the problem by mistakenly killing innocents, they have damaged their public image and lost public trust.

The problem is aggravated even more by the little-known fact that crimes by men wearing fake police uniforms are common (at least here in SoCal). The Highway Patrol is especially prone to being imitated by criminals, and several women are suspected to have been killed by fake CHP. The media seldom reports on these incidents, but occasionally, they get out.

To top it off, increasingly (at least here in SoCal), home invasion robberies are being performed by men in police uniforms, and using SWAT gear. They flash badges, identify themselves as police, and break down the door in a very professional manner. Lead ensues. It is suspected that they are gang members using training gained in the military. But this only works because some PD's have first created the image.

With all due respect to law enforcement officers on this forum, while the words "Protect and Serve" are undoubtedly the personal credo of the vast majority of LEO's, the unvarnished truth is that the courts have made them empty words painted on cruiser doors. Police have no obligation to either protect or serve. A good real-world well-known example is, again, the LA riots. LAPD watched the mayhem on TV, and were entirely justified, at least legally, that is, to do nothing. The law of the land is that LEO's have no duty to place themselves at any risk whatsoever. They do not have the duty or obligation to protect you, or to serve you. It is their duty to write a report when the smoke has cleared and the guns, knives, baseball bats, bricks, and body parts are non-confrontational. That said, many if not most LEO's both protect and serve anyway. There are many that are indeed hero's, and many more that will place their lives on the line and do heroic things without a second thought when the need arises. We all know honorable men like that. We should give all Police Officers the benefit of the doubt. But don't bet your life on that particular hero "protecting" you when you need him most.

I have a retired MP, a retired FBI agent, and a current LEO in my close family (brothers and Uncles). I will not comment on the advice they have given me in dealing with LE, other than the comment that "All organizations have ****ups; Don't be one of em." But I will tell you the results of those discussions. I keep my front door locked. Always. I keep one rifle near the front door, out of sight. It has a Surefire light attached, and magazine of FMJ in the well (empty chamber) with a magazine of HPBT alongside. I keep another, very similar rifle in the same condition in the bedroom. I have the local PD on speed dial. I have my attorney on speed dial.

It may seem inhospitable, but I do not allow LEO's into my home. I will, however, allow the DA to use the PD as agents of the court to conduct a legal search, or arrest, if the paperwork is in order. But they will not come into my house until the PD confirms by telephone that they actually sent officers with a warrant, and then gives me their names.

Anyone that attempts to forcibly enter my house until that confirmation is complete is going to get a face full of lead. "I'd rather be judged by 12 men..." "No knock" searches may be risky for me, but I intend to make damn sure it's fatal for anyone that breaks down my door in the middle of the night.

Useful article below. I can't vouch re veracity.

‘No-Knock’ Searches Get People Killed

by Vin Suprynowicz

Last week, we were asking how police found themselves in the bedroom of a naked couple in Lancaster, Calif., in 2001, guns drawn.

This led to a discussion of the problem with "no-knock" – or even "shout-once-and-storm-in" – search warrants.

On Nov. 21 of last year, Atlanta police planted marijuana on Fabian Sheats, a "suspected street dealer." They told Sheats they would let him go if he "gave them something." Sheats obligingly lied that he had spotted a kilogram of cocaine nearby, giving them the address of the elderly spinster Miss Kathryn Johnston, who neither used nor dealt drugs, but who did live in fear of break-ins in her crime-infested neighborhood.

Police then lied to a judge, claiming they had actually purchased drugs at the Johnston house, acquired one of those once-rare "no-knock" warrants, and violently battered down the reinforced metal door of a private home where there were no drugs.

Miss Johnston fired a warning shot at the unknown people busting down her door. That bullet lodged in the roof of her porch, injuring no one. Police replied by firing 39 rounds at her, hitting her five times, and wounding each other with another five rounds – though they lied and said they’d been shot by Miss Johnston.

They then handcuffed the old woman as she bled to death on the floor, and searched her house. Finding no drugs, they planted three bags of marijuana.

Next day, the cops picked up one Alex White, an informant, advising him that they needed him to lie, saying that he had purchased cocaine at Johnston’s house. White refused, managed to escape, and went to the media with the story.

Last month, two of those officers pleaded guilty to manslaughter – in deals which helped them escape murder charges – and now face more than 10 years in prison, after authorities demonstrated they lied to get their warrant.

Greg Jones of the Atlanta FBI office said at a news conference that the FBI is investigating "additional allegations of corruption that Atlanta police officers may have engaged in similar conduct."

Fulton County district attorney Paul Howard said he has started to review hundreds of other cases involving Officers Jason Smith and Gregg Junnier; convictions may be overturned. Last week, Police Chief Richard Pennington transferred his entire narcotics squad to other duties, contending his department would review its policy on "no-knock" warrants and its use of confidential informants. That "review" and seven bucks will get you a fancy cup of coffee at Starbucks.

Officer Smith’s attorney, John Garland, said his client "was trained to lie by fellow officers to establish probable cause."

Meantime, a black man named Cory Maye was still sitting on death row in Mississippi, the last I heard, because he heard men trying to break into his Prentiss, Miss. home late at night in December of 2001, where he was alone with his 18-month-old baby daughter.

Mr. Maye, who had no criminal record, got the child down onto the floor and lay down beside her to protect her. When one of the men finally broke into the bedroom, Cory Maye shot and killed him.

The man was hit in the abdomen, just below his bulletproof vest, and died a short time later. It turns out the man who had failed to knock and identify himself before breaking in was a cop, who was really after suspects in the other half of the duplex where Cory Maye lived. Turns out the cop was the white son of the white chief of police. An all-white jury sentenced Cory Maye, who is black, to death for exercising his right to defend his locked home and family against violent invasion by an unknown intruder. The all-white jury took only a few hours to do so, at least one juror explaining he wanted to get home for supper.

The list of such abuses goes on and on – without even mentioning the dozens of innocent women and children who eventually died thanks to the bungled and totally unnecessary 1993 BATF "incredibly-no-knock" raid on the Branch Davidian Church in Waco, Texas, whose residents (including Wayne Martin, a black Harvard Law School graduate) had previously demonstrated they would cheerfully cooperate with any law enforcement officer who merely knocked at the door and asked to see their guns.

(At Waco, the agents shot a dog and her puppies in their outdoor pen before they even got to the front door. Agents in National Guard helicopters – their ban from such actions on U.S. soil bypassed by the simple expedient of filling out sworn and thoroughly laughable affidavits claiming there was a "meth lab" inside a Christian church full of women and children – shot down through the roof, killing a nursing mother inside as her infant played by her bedside. When the unarmed Rev. David Koresh opened the front door to say, "Wait a minute, there are women and children here, let’s talk," agents fired at him, hitting his unarmed father-in-law, who stood behind him. Later, agents couldn’t even remember who carried the warrant. No one even CLAIMED they tried to "serve" it.)

For a partial rundown, see "Overkill: The Rise of Paramilitary Police Raids in America" by Cato Institute analyst Radley Balko along with the accompanying "map of botched paramilitary raids."

Charles P. Garcia, in "The Knock and Announce Rule: A New Approach to the Destruction-of-Evidence Exception," 1993, reports: "In 1970, the Nixon administration declared a ‘War on Drugs.’ The Justice Department urged Congress to enact a comprehensive anti-drug strategy and suggested that a general ‘no-knock’ provision could constitutionally be added to aid in enforcement. ...

"The ‘no-knock’ experience lasted four years. ... During the four-year period when ‘no-knock’ warrants were issued, horror stories were legion. ... In an exhaustive eight-week investigation by The New York Times, consisting of interviews with victims of ‘no-knock’ raids, reporters found that ‘Innocent Americans around the country have been subject to dozens of mistaken, violent and often illegal police raids by local, state and Federal narcotics agents in search of illicit drugs and their dealers.’

"In Florida, complaints of police harassment during drug searches were so overwhelming that Legal Services of Greater Miami was unable to handle the caseload. In Virginia, a terror-stricken woman, a previous burglary victim, shot and killed a young police officer executing a ‘no-knock’ warrant as he burst into her bedroom in the middle of the night."

(Astonishingly, no prosecution resulted, so far as I’ve been able to learn. The old woman, waiting terrified behind her closed bedroom door, had repeatedly called out, "Who’s in my house?" As with Chief Pennington in Atlanta, the bereaved Virginia chief said he would "review" his department’s use of no-knock warrants.)

"In California," Mr. Garcia continues, "one father was shot through the head as he sat in a living room cradling his infant son. Both the woman and the man were totally innocent of any wrongdoing. The federal ‘no-knock’ warrants were so disruptive that Congress repealed them four years later ... once again making ‘no-knock’ searches illegal under the federal ‘knock-and-announce’ rule."

So: what were those L. A. sheriff’s deputies doing in that bedroom in Lancaster, Calif., forcing Max Rettele and Judy Sadler to crawl out of bed naked, pointing guns at their heads and screaming and not allowing them even to grab a sheet or blanket to cover their nakedness?

The African-American suspects – who had moved – were sought for "identity theft," not a violent crime. There was no suspected "stash" that could be flushed down a toilet.

So why didn’t police knock at that door at suppertime, allowing the clothed couple to come to the door and calmly read their warrant before inviting police in to look around and confirm that the three African-Americans that police sought no longer lived there?

"While the facts in this case are unusual, not to say humorous," chuckled the reliably pro-police-state Los Angeles Times in an editorial last week, "the bottom line is important: Even when police follow the law, pursuit of the guilty will sometimes inconvenience – and embarrass – the innocent."

Oh, ha ha. Naked in their own bedroom. A little embarrassment. A little inconvenience. Chuckle chuckle.

And if Max Rettele and Judy Sadler had been armed? If they had opened fire on those gun-brandishing home invaders – as the terrified innocent victims Kathryn Johnston and Cory Maye did? If both that innocent couple and one or two pumped-up L.A. County sheriff’s deputies had ended up dead on the bedroom floor that early morning, would the Times still find it all so amusing?

June 4, 2007

Vin Suprynowicz [send him mail] is assistant editorial page editor of the daily Las Vegas Review-Journal and author of The Black Arrow.

Copyright © 2007 Vin Suprynowicz

FromMyColdDeadHand

06-27-09, 21:25

The level of retard in this thread is surpassing TOS.

As long as we don't go full retard. You should never go full retard.

SHIVAN

06-27-09, 21:27

You know, I'm really struggling to find any redeeming qualities in this thread. Can someone point two or three out to me??

If not...

Palmguy

06-27-09, 21:47

You know, I'm really struggling to find any redeeming qualities in this thread. Can someone point two or three out to me??

If not...

Not sure that I can point out any redeeming qualities, but it doesn't seem any less redeeming than plenty of other threads in GD :confused:

bkb0000

06-27-09, 22:48

You know, I'm really struggling to find any redeeming qualities in this thread. Can someone point two or three out to me??

If not...

entertainment...? it's just gonna turn into Us v. Them from here out, though.