PDA

View Full Version : Armed resident killed by police at wrong house



RoyGBiv
07-25-2013, 10:16 AM
Have seen several news articles recently about the police showing up at the wrong house.
This one ended badly (http://www.chron.com/news/texas/article/Armed-resident-killed-by-police-at-wrong-house-4685353.php?cmpid=hpfc) for a homeowner that called in a RIP at his neighbors house across the street.

So... you're sitting quietly watching TV in the dark of night. Suddenly there's banging at the door... "POLICE!!! Search Warrant.!"... CRASH (door jamb splinters)
*** noted that this is NOT the case in the linked article.

What to do?

And if you're reply is... "Well you can see by their uniforms they're cops", I say perhaps not (http://www.mrconservative.com/2013/06/20103-college-girls-suspected-of-buying-alcohol-arrested-at-gun-point-by-police-after-actually-buying-bottled-water/)... And...
When (if not already) will criminals start using "Police Search Warrant" as a ruse to gain entry/time?"

TR675
07-25-2013, 10:25 AM
Interesting that the officer who fired all of the shots was a rookie cop - initial reports stated that his partner did not fire his weapon.

Overall a needless tragedy and one more good reason to just stay indoors.

pax
07-25-2013, 10:35 AM
And...
When (if not already) will criminals start using "Police Search Warrant" as a ruse to gain entry/time?"

Like this?

http://www.krgv.com/news/woman-confronts-home-invaders-in-mission

pax

RoyGBiv
07-25-2013, 10:35 AM
one more good reason to just stay indoors.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=swat+team+enters+wrong+house

"shiver"

Tamara
07-25-2013, 10:44 AM
What to do?

Dude, some situations are just pretty much Kobayashi Maru, you know what I mean? It's like saying "You're out watering your lawn, and you get hit by a bolt of lightning. What do you do?"

What's sad is that, by some quick thumbnail web research, it looks like you might have a better chance of getting wrongly killed by the police (http://www.cato.org/raidmap) than by a lightning bolt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightning_strike#Epidemiology). We need to work to get those numbers in their proper relationship.

TR675
07-25-2013, 10:55 AM
I'm reading Balko's Rise of the Warrior Cop right now and he mentions there and in some related articles the belief some officers have that the whole "no-knock"-dynamic-entry-thing is less safe than other ways of arresting bad guys, like surveillance and arrest off-premises.

Interested to know our forum LEO's thoughts on the book/subject.

RoyGBiv
07-25-2013, 11:02 AM
Somewhere here someone shared a bit of wisdom that sticks with me...
The topic was something along the lines of "what to do if you're trying to help a LEO subdue an unruly suspect" and the wisdom was "yell... STOP RESISTING as you wade in to help"... I'll probably never need to employ that tool, but it's in my toolbox.

^^^ Of course I'm not trying to insinuate that there's some frightful wave of SWAT mistakes sweeping the nation, but these incidences are reported at a rate much greater than my memory recalls as "normal". Probably just more reporting on something that was happening already?.... But as an armed homeowner, one of the more frightful scenarios is exactly this...

So, what magic thing can help me distinguish the good guys making a mistake crossing my threshold from something that requires immediate force in response?

Chuck Haggard
07-25-2013, 11:06 AM
So, what magic thing can help me distinguish the good guys making a mistake crossing my threshold from something that requires immediate force in response

I'll post something more when I get it typed up, working on the same subject on the thread at TPI.

Short answer; Helmets

I have never, ever, seen or heard of bad guys wearing helmets, one of the best visual indicators that I know of.

If you are in a jurisdiction that has narc teams etc. doing raids instead of a no BS for-real SWAT team then you need to lean of your reps to fix that.

RoyGBiv
07-25-2013, 11:34 AM
Short answer; Helmets

Ask and ye shall receive... ;)

Looking forward to your writeup...

41magfan
07-25-2013, 11:54 AM
Like this?

http://www.krgv.com/news/woman-confronts-home-invaders-in-mission

pax

Not to derail the thread, but the knucklehead wielding the extended tube SG appears to have accomplished that rip-off with an empty chamber. As they were exiting the house, he appears to attempt an intimidation ploy by pointing the gun towards the front door and "racking" the action and nothing was ejected from the chamber.

I hope this practice bites him in the azz someday when he runs across somebody with their head screwed on straight.

rsa-otc
07-25-2013, 11:58 AM
And if you're reply is... "Well you can see by their uniforms they're cops", I say perhaps not (http://www.mrconservative.com/2013/06/20103-college-girls-suspected-of-buying-alcohol-arrested-at-gun-point-by-police-after-actually-buying-bottled-water/)... And...
When (if not already) will criminals start using "Police Search Warrant" as a ruse to gain entry/time?"

Back in the late 80's I wrote an article for the Police Marksman publication titled Traffic Stops the Armored Car perspective. In that article I outlined 3 incidents where the baddies were outfitted with complete authentic police uniforms. In one case both crew members were killed, in another one crew member was pistol whipped and suffered permanent injury. Shortly after I wrote the article and right before it was published another incident occurred.

Fast forward to 2007 and one of the instructors at one of my NRA Instructors courses knew the gentleman who provided the uniforms to the perps in the incident that the 2 crewmen lost their lives. The incident occurred in and the instructor was from Arizona and my class was outside Pittsburg PA. It's a Small world.

This stuff happens more than most civilian and police realize. Truly I really don't know what I would do if the door came crashing down and people started yelling police. Unless you know you are a criminal yourself any which way your taking a chance that it will end badly.

David Armstrong
07-25-2013, 12:42 PM
Since I have friends on every SWAT team in the area I hope that would serve as a bit of a buffer for me. For others? I'd say play the odds. I'm not sure why any BGs would want to come do a raid at my place. Just nothing there of any importance. AFAIK most of the full-blown uniformed fake raids are the result of drugs or large amounts of cash or similar. So the odds certainly are in my favor that it is the local police with a typo on a warrant. And I think that would be my default position until proven otherwise. Your situation may be different.

Coyotesfan97
07-25-2013, 03:17 PM
I'm reading Balko's Rise of the Warrior Cop right now and he mentions there and in some related articles the belief some officers have that the whole "no-knock"-dynamic-entry-thing is less safe than other ways of arresting bad guys, like surveillance and arrest off-premises.

Interested to know our forum LEO's thoughts on the book/subject.

I was on SWAT for fifteen years. At one point I was on the entry team on almost every warrant before I went to K9. I never saw or participated in a no knock warrant. Oh sometimes the Detectives writing the warrant got a no knock exception. My Team Leaders never used it.

When I started everything was dynamic. Then SWAT tactics started evolving and we started doing everything except HRT as a slow and deliberate search. We went to breech and hold and then then surround and call. I can't remember the last time my team served a warrant differently. K9 is part of the Tactical unit here and I still go to a lot of callouts.

Any time you go into someone else's home it's dangerous. A surround and call followed by a slow and deliberate search using a K9 to search ahead of the entry team is probably as safe as it gets IMHO.

Surveillance and arrest off site are always an option but you really have to look at the suspect you're going after. If you had a chance to lock him down inside a structure and your arrest at a quiet location turns into a pursuit that ends in a gun battle at the local mall you're going to be answering a lot of questions.

I realized pretty quick as we changed tactics that a dynamic entry was a pretty good way of getting killed for a 20 rock. Narcs don't like losing evidence and SWAT guys don't like losing team members. At least here guess who wins when it comes to serving warrants. Oh we'll serve your warrant and we have some ways to try to stop evidence being destroyed but we'll do it safely.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Lon
07-25-2013, 06:35 PM
When I first got and SWAT and then became a narc I was all about kicking in doors. Didnt take me long once I started kicking doors as a narc (our swat team rarely kicked in doors for them) that I realized the way we did things was kitten stupid. While I was a narc, our SWAT team changed our tactics to the surround and call out or breach and hold. We all agreed getting killed for dope was stupid. My narc boss disagreed and kept using us narc guys to kick in doors. I got sick of that and my boss and went back to patrol. I still can't convince my replacement that dope isn't worth getting killed. Theyre still kicking in doors on a regular basis. They won't call us for high risk warrants because we won't go dynamic. I hope they stay lucky. We never use the whole black balaclava thing. If one of us couldn't be seen for whatever reason, they stayed in the office. They still operate that way.

I did one night-time no-knock warrant in four years. Used the SWAT team. No one was home. We haven't done one since. Personally, I think no-knock and night time warrants for dope should be heavily restricted by the courts. There are ways around hitting the house like a tornado that still allow you to get what you need.

As far as SWAT style bad guy tactics, I helped send one crew who did that on a regular basis to prison for a long time. Not sure how many people they killed but weren't convicted for, but we think it was @6.

This is a hot topic for alot of SWAT teams. Many of the state Tactical Officer Associations are moving this way, as well as the NTOA. Hopefully that continues.

Haraise
07-26-2013, 02:45 AM
There seem to be a lot of people with experience on the other side of the fence here, so to speak.

I'm curious, if a civilian wanted to increase the probability that the cops would 'talk them to death' rather than go for for the nylon and balaclava approach on a wrong address search, what reasonable precautions would help with that?

Wrought iron bars over windows? Security metal door that opens outward? I'm not sure at what level of difficulty talking becomes more attractive than kicking in/breaking through/pulling a door off with a vehicle.

Chuck Whitlock
07-26-2013, 04:44 AM
I have never, ever, seen or heard of bad guys wearing helmets, one of the best visual indicators that I know of.

That reminds me. A long time ago Mas Ayoob wrote that though he detested the issued 8-point hat, he wore it on searches, as the profile/shadow looked like nothing else but a cop.

mongooseman
07-26-2013, 09:33 AM
Granted that I police in the boonies, which I think gives us an edge on knowing our bad guys, we prefer to take down our bad guys down away from home if possible. The older I get, the less I like dynamic entry.

jlw
07-26-2013, 09:59 AM
I'll post something more when I get it typed up, working on the same subject on the thread at TPI.

Short answer; Helmets

I have never, ever, seen or heard of bad guys wearing helmets, one of the best visual indicators that I know of.

If you are in a jurisdiction that has narc teams etc. doing raids instead of a no BS for-real SWAT team then you need to lean of your reps to fix that.

Not everybody has the personnel and resources to have "no BS for-real SWAT teams". Folks that have to rely on a multi-agency/regional team or the state team are often at the mercy of whether or not those teams will deploy.

John Ralston
07-26-2013, 10:05 AM
This topic has been the one thing in my mind that has always concerned me. You know how the Libs always put things in regards to intrusions in your privacy...If you are one of the good guys you have nothing to hide (as they strip you of multiple Constitutional Rights). This goes in a slightly different direction...If you are one of the good guys, you have no reason to ever expect a SWAT Raid to serve a search warrant.

If the door gets knocked off the hinges, I don't think I am going to be asking for ID, but you always run the risk of this outcome.

jlw
07-26-2013, 10:18 AM
In reference to "no knock" warrants and "SWAT", often media reports or those reading them label all search warrants with such labels when they aren't applicable. No knocks are a separate attachment to a warrant that must specifically be authorized by a judge. Also, not everybody wearing external body armor is SWAT.

In our SO, in order for a no knock provision to be included in a warrant both the Sheriff and I must agree that there is justification for it. It's like the missile key thing in all of the submarine movies, we both have to agree or it doesn't happen.

I'm on a control board for a regional narcotics task force. Any no knocks done by the regional task force are specifically reviewed at the control board meetings. Such warrants are a very, very small percentage of the warrants obtained and executed in the region.

Chuck Haggard
07-26-2013, 10:41 AM
Not everybody has the personnel and resources to have "no BS for-real SWAT teams". Folks that have to rely on a multi-agency/regional team or the state team are often at the mercy of whether or not those teams will deploy.

Chief, with all due respect sir, I often work with or train with cops and deputies from agencies as small as the literal one man show, I get it, however, comma, the courts do not care what you can or can not afford when coppers screw up and kill the wrong people.

The issue I often see is not money, because people are buying equipment and putting it to use, it's the ego and training that need to be taken care of.

I have a friend who was on a team up in Tam's neck of the woods. He left the team because they had almost zero standards for training, never went outside of their own agency for training and validation, never participated in stuff like the NTOA, etc.
That their team bought a 7" DPMS Panther "Kitty Cat" for everyone on the team because SWAT guys need short guns makes Baby Jesus weep. That choice of firearm should in and of itself let anyone who knows anything about ARs know said team is rampant with Dunning-Kruger effect.

They are also using locally made reloads for use in said guns, except for a few guys who he found carrying Wolf in their guns. Seriously.

jlw
07-26-2013, 10:55 AM
Chief, with all due respect sir, I often work with or train with cops and deputies from agencies as small as the literal one man show, I get it, however, comma, the courts do not care what you can or can not afford when coppers screw up and kill the wrong people.

The issue I often see is not money, because people are buying equipment and putting it to use, it's the ego and training that need to be taken care of.

I have a friend who was on a team up in Tam's neck of the woods. He left the team because they had almost zero standards for training, never went outside of their own agency for training and validation, never participated in stuff like the NTOA, etc.
That their team bought a 7" DPMS Panther "Kitty Cat" for everyone on the team because SWAT guys need short guns makes Baby Jesus weep. That choice of firearm should in and of itself let anyone who knows anything about ARs know said team is rampant with Dunning-Kruger effect.

They are also using locally made reloads for use in said guns, except for a few guys who he found carrying Wolf in their guns. Seriously.

LT,

I didn't write anything about excusing cops for screwing up. What I wrote was that not every agency can field a full fledged "SWAT" team.

The use of proper tactics and just plain good sense is not limited to folks with a SWAT pin on their uniform.

Chuck Haggard
07-26-2013, 11:16 AM
I love analogies, so I'll run with this one;

I see a lot of teams that if they were in the medical field instead of "SWAT" would have bought an ambulance, all of the med gear that goes on board, EMT uniforms, etc., but never go to school to be an EMT or paramedic.

If you are going to ride in an ambulance, wear EMT clothes and show up on real scenes to render aid then perhaps you should also be an actual EMT with the appropriate training.

I know I'd rather have a guy like Doc Roberts tending to me with his pocket trauma kit that have Ozzie Osborn pull up in the best ambulance ever built.


I hope that makes sense.

jlw
07-26-2013, 11:30 AM
I'm not saying that there isn't a need for "SWAT". I'm saying that not every agency can field a team of its own.


On a philosophical standpoint, I firmly believe that much of what is considered "special" and thus reserved for SWAT in many places should be the baseline training of the proverbial average patrol cop. Sure, there are entry techniques that require a lot of specialized training and practice, but stacking up, going through a door, and clearing a structure should be a basic skill set and not something "special".

walkin' trails
07-26-2013, 07:57 PM
I'm not a SWAT operator and have never been one. I work for a bunch, that while we were all provided some good basic entry training, a dedicated full time SWAT has better training and experience to make entries. We the used the services of teams in my metro area, and even though some scoft at the pains they take before they deploy, they're pretty sure they're hitting the right address. I've seen a case of two where the wrong door got kicked, but that was the fault of someone swearing that was where the violation was taking place before.a team was ever called. It is stuff that shouldn't happen in the first place. I don't really know what to say to a law abiding citizen placed into that situation. Then again in my area a few months ago, some thugs broke int a dwelling yelling "police search warrant" and killed the resident inside. Don't know the motive.

RoyGBiv
07-27-2013, 12:42 AM
I've seen a case of two where the wrong door got kicked, but that was the fault of someone swearing that was where the violation was taking place before.a team was ever called. It is stuff that shouldn't happen in the first place. I don't really know what to say to a law abiding citizen placed into that situation. Then again in my area a few months ago, some thugs broke int a dwelling yelling "police search warrant" and killed the resident inside. Don't know the motive.

Kitten.

Morbidbattlecry
07-27-2013, 10:00 PM
Dude, some situations are just pretty much Kobayashi Maru, you know what I mean? It's like saying "You're out watering your lawn, and you get hit by a bolt of lightning. What do you do?"

What's sad is that, by some quick thumbnail web research, it looks like you might have a better chance of getting wrongly killed by the police (http://www.cato.org/raidmap) than by a lightning bolt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightning_strike#Epidemiology). We need to work to get those numbers in their proper relationship.

Please tell me i wasn't the only one who got this reference.

Haraise
07-28-2013, 01:26 AM
Please tell me i wasn't the only one who got this reference.

You weren't.

In a few years you might be the only one to know the point of the situation wasn't originally to 'feel fear,' though. ;)

Tamara
07-28-2013, 07:28 AM
In reference to "no knock" warrants and "SWAT", often media reports or those reading them label all search warrants with such labels when they aren't applicable. No knocks are a separate attachment to a warrant that must specifically be authorized by a judge. Also, not everybody wearing external body armor is SWAT.

To Joe and Jane Voter, that's a distinction without a difference, though.

A bunch of raid-vest-wearing narcotics officers kicking in a door after a cursory knock and announce IS a SWAT team performing a no-knock as far as John Q. Public knows or cares.

Corlissimo
07-28-2013, 07:36 AM
Please tell me i wasn't the only one who got this reference.

Nope. The only problem is, as with most IRL scenarios, changing the test parameters is much more problematic. :D

Typos brought to you by my DROID... and my apathy.

jlw
07-28-2013, 08:28 AM
To Joe and Jane Voter, that's a distinction without a difference, though.

A bunch of raid-vest-wearing narcotics officers kicking in a door after a cursory knock and announce IS a SWAT team performing a no-knock as far as John Q. Public knows or cares.

I'm not disagreeing with you, but I also submit that many on gun forums reinforce such a belief.

I have external body armor, and I am not SWAT or a narc. The same applies to many others in our SO and elsewhere.

Erik
07-28-2013, 11:24 AM
I'll post something more when I get it typed up, working on the same subject on the thread at TPI.

Short answer; Helmets

I have never, ever, seen or heard of bad guys wearing helmets, one of the best visual indicators that I know of.

If you are in a jurisdiction that has narc teams etc. doing raids instead of a no BS for-real SWAT team then you need to lean of your reps to fix that.

I'd really like to see the longer answer on this if you have the opportunity. It would be very much appreciated by me (and I suspect I am not alone in that).

ToddG
07-29-2013, 08:27 AM
I have external body armor, and I am not SWAT or a narc. The same applies to many others in our SO and elsewhere.

My entire county PD (~1,300 sworn) is authorized to wear external body armor and many do.

But I think Tam's point is being missed here. The title of the thread isn't "Armed resident killed by SWAT operators performing no-knock raid at wrong house." It doesn't matter where the officers' names are listed on an agency organizational chart. It doesn't matter whether they bailed out of a radio car or an armored van. It doesn't matter whether they've got 10" 416s or 4.5" Glocks. It doesn't matter whether they knocked on the front door once or twice a second before breaking the door down.

We had an incident not long ago here in the DC area where an accountant was shot through the heart by the point man on a raid. They decided to do a hard & fast team attack on his residence because he "owned guns." An inadequately trained, inadequately prepared "operator" had his inadequately placed finger on the trigger of a pistol pointed in an inadequate direction.

Officer safety shouldn't be an acceptable excuse to trump my right as a private law-abiding citizen to be safe in my own home. "He might flush 0.00000000000001% of the drugs in the US down his toilet!" is a very, very poor excuse to risk shooting an innocent homeowner or, equally as tragic, getting an innocent police officer killed by an innocent homeowner.

jlw
07-29-2013, 08:39 AM
My entire county PD (~1,300 sworn) is authorized to wear external body armor and many do.

But I think Tam's point is being missed here. The title of the thread isn't "Armed resident killed by SWAT operators performing no-knock raid at wrong house." It doesn't matter where the officers' names are listed on an agency organizational chart. It doesn't matter whether they bailed out of a radio car or an armored van. It doesn't matter whether they've got 10" 416s or 4.5" Glocks. It doesn't matter whether they knocked on the front door once or twice a second before breaking the door down.

We had an incident not long ago here in the DC area where an accountant was shot through the heart by the point man on a raid. They decided to do a hard & fast team attack on his residence because he "owned guns." An inadequately trained, inadequately prepared "operator" had his inadequately placed finger on the trigger of a pistol pointed in an inadequate direction.

Officer safety shouldn't be an acceptable excuse to trump my right as a private law-abiding citizen to be safe in my own home. "He might flush 0.00000000000001% of the drugs in the US down his toilet!" is a very, very poor excuse to risk shooting an innocent homeowner or, equally as tragic, getting an innocent police officer killed by an innocent homeowner.

Todd,

Nothing I have written is contrary to any of those points that you are making.

jlw
07-29-2013, 08:44 AM
Please note that I didn't introduce SWAT into the discussion. I was merely responding to several statements made concerning SWAT and no knocks along with perceptions, portrayals, and misconceptions.

The story in the OP states that the homeowner pointed his pistol at the responding officers. It's a tragic death compounded by the fact that the officers where apparently at the wrong address, but pointing a gun at someone else with a gun is a recipe for someone getting shot regardless of the address.

Is there anyone on this forum, regardless of profession, that will state for the record that they would not shoot at someone who is pointing a gun at them?

David Armstrong
07-29-2013, 09:21 AM
Please note that I didn't introduce SWAT into the discussion. I was merely responding to several statements made concerning SWAT and no knocks along with perceptions, portrayals, and misconceptions.

The story in the OP states that the homeowner pointed his pistol at the responding officers. It's a tragic death compounded by the fact that the officers where apparently at the wrong address, but pointing a gun at someone else with a gun is a recipe for someone getting shot regardless of the address.

Is there anyone on this forum, regardless of profession, that will state for the record that they would not shoot at someone who is pointing a gun at them?
I will state for the record that I have not shot someone who was pointing a gun at me on more than one occassion. That is not to say I wouldn't, but at the time it didn't seem particularly necessary.

TR675
07-29-2013, 09:33 AM
No, but that door swings both ways.

What troubles me is that in the cases I've read about - which may be subject to selection bias, I grant you - when cops mistakenly shoot homeowners they get, maybe, reprimanded, but when homeowners shoot cops they get dead or indicted.

KeeFus
07-29-2013, 09:38 AM
Is there anyone on this forum, regardless of profession, that will state for the record that they would not shoot at someone who is pointing a gun at them?

I have. But he shot at me first and, frankly, I am lucky to be typing this right now.

We have 43 officers. About 7 are on a part-time TAC (SWAT) team. They train for 8 hours once a month. They also attend regional training sessions (competition) at the Justice Academy. We have all the TAC gear etc. that the full time teams have, minus a sniper. That said, they get used about 3 times a year.

From reading the link provided by the OP the officers went to the wrong address not because it was written down wrong on a search warrant; but apparently because they simply went to the wrong address looking for a burglary suspect...or were they merely checking nearby residences for a suspect that may have fled from the original callers address? When Waller was ordered to drop the weapon he instead pointed it at the officers. I understand that Waller was at his own residence when he was shot. I've always been leery of walking around folks homes at night looking for a bad guy and this is a shining example of what can happen. This wasn't a botched raid...it was a burglary call that every officer has answered...they simply went to the wrong house.

From the link: The officers identified themselves and ordered Waller to drop the gun, but he pointed it at the officers, prompting Hoeppner to shoot Waller, according to the affidavit.

Waller was pronounced dead at 1:26 a.m. inside the garage.

Bold added for emphasis because this differs from what the PD is saying in that he was at the corner of the garage...not inside it.

This case is a huge shit sandwich and no one (police and family of Weller) will be happy with the outcome. The officers went to the wrong address and ended up killing what appears to be an innocent home owner. Will the police be held accountable for it criminally? I doubt it. Civilly? I'm sure.

My response is based solely on what I read in the articles. From my dealings with the media (and getting pimp slapped by Tam over the GZ case) I am positive that they have left some pertinent information out of the article to sensationalize what happened.

jlw
07-29-2013, 09:40 AM
I will state for the record that I have not shot someone who was pointing a gun at me on more than one occassion. That is not to say I wouldn't, but at the time it didn't seem particularly necessary.

Note that the question was "would not" and not "did not".

Tamara
07-29-2013, 10:01 AM
Is there anyone on this forum, regardless of profession, that will state for the record that they would not shoot at someone who is pointing a gun at them?

Exactly my point with the Kobayashi Maru reference. (Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kobayashi_Maru) for non-nerds.) The householder thinks it's violent home invaders; the cops think it's a violent felon who wants to shoot it out. Not a recipe for any winners, except maybe whoever gets to bill the hours for the inevitable civil litigation.

ToddG
07-29-2013, 03:12 PM
Is there anyone on this forum, regardless of profession, that will state for the record that they would not shoot at someone who is pointing a gun at them?

Were the officers pointing guns when they came into the home of this innocent person? If so, then wasn't he justified in pointing a gun right back at them? That path just spirals into oblivion.

The error that caused this was police forcibly entering the wrong home. Suggesting that the homeowner deserves any blame for what transpired is unfair. If my front door gets kicked open, I'll have a gun in my hand two seconds later, too. That won't make me at fault if a misplaced police officer shoots and kills me.

JeffJ
07-29-2013, 03:29 PM
But they didn't forcibly enter the house, they came down the driveway to the back of the house and the homeowner was in or just outside of his garage. It's just a clusterkitten - cops are at the wrong house looking for a burglar, homeowner is afraid there is a burglar across the street and calls cops to send them across the street. Cops come around house expecting burglar, man goes out to his garage afraid there is a burglar. Bad things happen.

I'm sure that especially in the wake of the Zimmerman fiasco, a lot of people think he should have stayed in the house, but I don't want to give up my right to open my garage door or go into my backyard at night.

ToddG
07-29-2013, 03:44 PM
But they didn't forcibly enter the house, they came down the driveway to the back of the house and the homeowner was in or just outside of his garage.

Major mea culpa for not reading the full story, then. Sorry, jlw!

My comment still stands in terms of the other incidents that have been raised in this thread, though.

BLR
07-29-2013, 06:41 PM
Aside from hostage situations, why is anyone kicking in any doors?

No amount of illegal drugs flushed down the toilet is worth my health or life.

This is just a very, very dangerous thing for all involved. A risk that doesn't need to happen.

TCinVA
07-29-2013, 08:54 PM
I love analogies, so I'll run with this one;

I see a lot of teams that if they were in the medical field instead of "SWAT" would have bought an ambulance, all of the med gear that goes on board, EMT uniforms, etc., but never go to school to be an EMT or paramedic.

If you are going to ride in an ambulance, wear EMT clothes and show up on real scenes to render aid then perhaps you should also be an actual EMT with the appropriate training.

I know I'd rather have a guy like Doc Roberts tending to me with his pocket trauma kit that have Ozzie Osborn pull up in the best ambulance ever built.


I hope that makes sense.

Perfect sense. There are a lot of SWAT teams out there that are self-licking ice cream cones. Often in organizations that have serious leadership issues and a poisonous organizational culture. Those circumstances breed bad outcomes.

Typically in such an organization the bad outcomes aren't limited to SWAT callouts. They show up all over the map, as poor leadership and a defective culture has a way of turning everything the department does into a clown show.

As for the original story, it's a crap sandwich. It's not the first time it's happened, though. Somewhere out there is security cam footage of police forcibly entering a home where there had been an alarm or something. The burgler had been chased off by the armed homeowner...and when the cops came through the front door the first thing they saw was the homeowner with a weapon. I believe the homeowner survived, but barely and with permanent problems that go along with almost a dozen bullet wounds.

The key question in my mind here is the actions of the now deceased homeowner. If he really did point his gun at the cops it's understandable. It's also possible that he didn't actually point his gun at the cops, that the officer who fired saw the guy, fixated on "GUN!" and opened up. No way to know for sure which happened.

jlw
07-30-2013, 12:51 AM
The error that caused this was police forcibly entering the wrong home. Suggesting that the homeowner deserves any blame for what transpired is unfair. If my front door gets kicked open, I'll have a gun in my hand two seconds later, too. That won't make me at fault if a misplaced police officer shoots and kills me.

Todd,

Quite frankly I am shocked that after all that I have written on this forum and my other writings that have been linked here that I am actually being asked such a question in such a manner. Maybe I'm just tired and not clear of mind having just walked in the door from a manhunt, but I'm more than baffled.

ToddG
07-30-2013, 06:14 AM
Quite frankly I am shocked that after all that I have written on this forum and my other writings that have been linked here that I am actually being asked such a question in such a manner. Maybe I'm just tired and not clear of mind having just walked in the door from a manhunt, but I'm more than baffled.

I'm not sure what you're responding to. What you quoted in your post doesn't even have a question in it.

You asked (if I may paraphrase), "don't we all think it's ok to shoot someone who points a gun at us?" To me that glossed over the fact that when the police make a mistake and put themselves in a situation where an innocent homeowner responds to an unlawful intruder in a lawful, armed manner he got shot.

fixer
07-30-2013, 06:39 AM
Officer safety shouldn't be an acceptable excuse to trump my right as a private law-abiding citizen to be safe in my own home. "He might flush 0.00000000000001% of the drugs in the US down his toilet!" is a very, very poor excuse to risk shooting an innocent homeowner or, equally as tragic, getting an innocent police officer killed by an innocent homeowner.

Totally agree.

jlw
07-30-2013, 05:22 PM
I'm not sure what you're responding to. What you quoted in your post doesn't even have a question in it.

You asked (if I may paraphrase), "don't we all think it's ok to shoot someone who points a gun at us?" To me that glossed over the fact that when the police make a mistake and put themselves in a situation where an innocent homeowner responds to an unlawful intruder in a lawful, armed manner he got shot.

As I wrote, perhaps I was misreading things. I was out until 0200 on a manhunt.

The subject of the manhunt has active warrants from an adjacent county for beating a 75 year old man, and the suspect committed a burglary yesterday in a different adjacent county where he stole a truck and an AR15 and was chased into our county where he crashed out and went into the woods.

I was reading your post as if you were actually asking me if I was okay with unjustified shootings.

The situation in the OP was not a case of folks kicking in the wrong door. It was guys outside a house looking for a burglary suspect who were then face to face with a gun, and they shot. It's a tragedy. It very easily could have gone the other way with the citizen shooting the cops. That would have been a tragedy as well. It could be argued in this particular example that either side would have met the legal standard (at least under my state's law) for using deadly force.

As for the typical "officer safety" assertions, officer safety is a goal, but it is not a legal authority to seize. I teach a class on this very subject. I'm teaching it next week for another agency as a matter of fact. The name of the class is "Interacting With the Armed Citizen", and I walk the students through a clear path that officer safety is not a legal justification to seize. The only two legal authorities that allow an officer to seize are reasonable articulable suspicion and probable cause.

I just got in from being out hunting this same guy since 0700 this morning. It's July in GA, which means it's awful hot. I'm tired. I'm probably still not getting anywhere near anything coherent.

On another note, I had quite a chuckle this morning I was walking out to my truck: the guy two houses down was walking to his car carrying a briefcase; I was toting body armor and an AR. It struck me as funny. Maybe it's just me.

Tamara
07-30-2013, 05:28 PM
As for the typical "officer safety" assertions, officer safety is a goal, but it is not a legal authority to seize. I teach a class on this very subject. I'm teaching it next week for another agency as a matter of fact. The name of the class is "Interacting With the Armed Citizen", and I walk the students through a clear path that officer safety is not a legal justification to seize. The only two legal authorities that allow an officer to seize are reasonable articulable suspicion and probable cause.

Are there any more at home like you? :)

ToddG
07-30-2013, 08:26 PM
As I wrote, perhaps I was misreading things. I was out until 0200 on a manhunt.

I was asleep in my bed by 10pm. I think that means I win. :cool:


I was reading your post as if you were actually asking me if I was okay with unjustified shootings.

The assumption would be that no rational person would be ok with a shooting he considered unjustified. That's tautological.


The situation in the OP was not a case of folks kicking in the wrong door.

Yup, major error on my part thinking it was an in-home event per my previous post.


As for the typical "officer safety" assertions, officer safety is a goal, but it is not a legal authority to seize. I teach a class on this very subject. I'm teaching it next week for another agency as a matter of fact. The name of the class is "Interacting With the Armed Citizen", and I walk the students through a clear path that officer safety is not a legal justification to seize. The only two legal authorities that allow an officer to seize are reasonable articulable suspicion and probable cause.

I agree with you 100%. However, in many jurisdictions the statement I highlighted above in red is ignored. I've had multiple friends in Virginia, legally carrying with a valid CCW license, told to surrender their firearms during minor traffic stops. My county PD -- of which I'm actually a big proponent, they generally do great work and have a sub-2min response time -- unfortunately justifies multiple full- and part-time tactical teams by sending them on a lot of warrant services. The excuse is almost always "officer safety" ... there is some quasi-credible jigsaw puzzle combination of facts and possibilities that leads to the conclusion that someone in the house or office could have a weapon and might use it so send SWAT now!

The next county over is quite famous for killing dogs during such raids on otherwise peaceful folks ... including some high-profile "oops wrong house wrong dog" moments. The first thing a misdirected SWAT cop is going to see if he kicks in my front door at 0230 is my angry barking Malinois. What's he going to do? He's going to shoot it. What's my response to a stranger who kicks in my front door and kills my dog? Quite possibly too fast and from too far away to see little sew-on "low profile" badge patches. And quite possibly too loud to hear someone chanting "police" even if I was inclined to believe the police had some reason to be kicking my door in at 0230.

Of all the bad things that could happen to me, killing a police officer who was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time is among the very worst I can imagine. I don't know that I could ever forgive myself even if I felt completely justified at the moment I took the shot. And I imagine the local constabulary would be no more forgiving, either. That's why every time I hear one of these stories it bothers me so much. It's a situation where no matter how right you are, you're still wrong.

jlw
07-31-2013, 08:02 AM
Todd,

I typically get brought in to teach my class by agencies as a result of legal action against the agency or a major FUBAR on their part with the agency head taking action to fix things. There are a few folks who have gotten ahead of the game.

One of the cases I use in the class is a state appeals court case (GA courts) where the court ruled that there is no carte blanche authority to seize firearms on a traffic stop. It is paired with several SCOTUS rulings in which the court ruled that there is no firearms exception to the Fourth Amendment.

----

We have found a very effective interview process here. A candidate rides along with our patrol guys. The patrol guys tell me whether I need to proceed with the other formalities or not.

My formal interview has shrunk to the following:

- Define probable cause.
- Define reasonable articulable suspicion.
- Scenario: You are dispatched to the local grocery store due to a report of a person carrying a pistol. How would you handle this call?

If a cop can't define the first two, they aren't working here. As for the scenario, I don't expect them to know the letter of our policy, but if their handling of the call involves simply going in and detaining the gun toter barring any RAS of criminal activity, they can't work here. A tier one approach is acceptable.

----

Update on the manhunt:

The guy was caught last night.

KeeFus
07-31-2013, 08:12 AM
One of the cases I use in the class is a state appeals court case (GA courts) where the court ruled that there is no carte blanche authority to seize firearms on a traffic stop. It is paired with several SCOTUS rulings in which the court ruled that there is no firearms exception to the Fourth Amendment.



I'd love to have the Case Law. We have some...newer officers...that like to seize folks pistols and it drives me insane. The officer safety comment/reasoning in most cases are BS.

I stopped a guy about a month ago and before I exited my patrol car I knew he was carrying. Hands at 10/2 and watching me like a hawk. I got to his door and he was shaking like a leaf (not an exaggeration). I did the cursory verbal judo stuff and he said, "Sir, I have a pistol on my passenger seat." My reply, "I know, can I see you DL and registration please?" When I said that it was like the world had been lifted off his shoulders. After I wrote him his citation we talked about his G-23 (which never left the passenger seat) and he actually thanked me for the ticket. ;)

jlw
07-31-2013, 08:23 AM
I'd love to have the Case Law. We have some...newer officers...that like to seize folks pistols and it drives me insane. The officer safety comment/reasoning in most cases are BS.

I stopped a guy about a month ago and before I exited my patrol car I knew he was carrying. Hands at 10/2 and watching me like a hawk. I got to his door and he was shaking like a leaf (not an exaggeration). I did the cursory verbal judo stuff and he said, "Sir, I have a pistol on my passenger seat." My reply, "I know, can I see you DL and registration please?" When I said that it was like the world had been lifted off his shoulders. After I wrote him his citation we talked about his G-23 (which never left the passenger seat) and he actually thanked me for the ticket. ;)

The GA case is State v Jones (http://georgiapacking.org/caselaw/statevjones.htm), 289 Ga. App. 176 (2008).

Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 273 (2002) deals with a tip that a person is armed.

United States v. Ubliles, 224 F.3d 213 (2000): paraphrase "knowledge that a person is armed is no different than knowledge that they have a wallet". This case has some very good cites in it.

ToddG
07-31-2013, 08:40 AM
After I wrote him his citation we talked about his G-23 (which never left the passenger seat) and he actually thanked me for the ticket. ;)

You are mean. I've never received a speeding ticket after self-identifying as a CCW holder. I thought that was the law. :cool:

KeeFus
07-31-2013, 08:51 AM
You are mean. I've never received a speeding ticket after self-identifying as a CCW holder. I thought that was the law. :cool:

Lol! He actually wasn't a CCW holder but was OC. Didn't matter though, at that speed he kinda had it coming.

ToddG
07-31-2013, 08:53 AM
Didn't matter though, at that speed he kinda had it coming.

I can only assume, then, that he was going so slow below the speed limit that he was impeding normal traffic.

KeeFus
07-31-2013, 09:30 AM
I can only assume, then, that he was going so slow below the speed limit that he was impeding normal traffic.

I can honestly say that I have never written a driver for going to slow. That ranks right up there with tint violations & not having a rear view mirror in my book.

Sorry for the drift.



The GA case is State v Jones (http://georgiapacking.org/caselaw/statevjones.htm), 289 Ga. App. 176 (2008).

Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 273 (2002) deals with a tip that a person is armed.

United States v. Ubliles, 224 F.3d 213 (2000): paraphrase "knowledge that a person is armed is no different than knowledge that they have a wallet". This case has some very good cites in it.

Thanks for the cases.

I am addicted to this forum. This is always the first place I come to when I get on the internet. The knowledge base here is quite unbelievable when compared to others!

jlw
07-31-2013, 09:47 AM
My posting was interrupted by a chase.

The jail has one less vacancy. There's also a barbed wire fence with a new gate where one used to not be and a patrol truck missing a radio antenna.

Tamara
07-31-2013, 10:51 AM
Washington v. Indiana (http://www.indygunsafety.com/Washington.htm) is a recent case touching on the same topic.

jlw
07-31-2013, 11:52 AM
Washington v. Indiana (http://www.indygunsafety.com/Washington.htm) is a recent case touching on the same topic.

That's eerily similar to Jones.


Here's the thing: the officer legally could have had the driver step out of the vehicle and over to the curb thus separating him from the pistol. Instead, he played chicken with case law.

Shellback
07-31-2013, 05:15 PM
The GA case is State v Jones (http://georgiapacking.org/caselaw/statevjones.htm), 289 Ga. App. 176 (2008).

Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 273 (2002) deals with a tip that a person is armed.

United States v. Ubliles, 224 F.3d 213 (2000): paraphrase "knowledge that a person is armed is no different than knowledge that they have a wallet". This case has some very good cites in it.


Washington v. Indiana (http://www.indygunsafety.com/Washington.htm) is a recent case touching on the same topic.

Thank you both. Great info.

BLR
08-02-2013, 06:40 AM
The more I think about it, the more I think that story fits this thread perfectly. Can anyone give me a convincing explanation why it took thirteen guys from at least two agencies, presumably all jocked up, to do a job that could have been handled by a guy in a Ranger Rick outfit with a clipboard and a .22?

I can give you the actual explanation - It's fun to gear up and do this stuff. That's why Yeager has that awesome class...and no shortage of students. All the better when you know what you are doing will be totally safe...for you...assuming anther Tactical Timmah doesn't make your head explode with an errant barrier blind 556.

SecondsCount
08-02-2013, 09:13 AM
On the other end of the spectrum, my brother-in-law is a sheriff's deputy and is missing part of his left hand from a tactical entry. His partner died that day as well.

They were serving an arrest warrant on a child pornography charge and the guy opened up on them with a 30-30.

That being said, I detest the no-knock warrant and the militarization of police departments.

David Armstrong
08-02-2013, 09:38 AM
Note that the question was "would not" and not "did not".
Actually the question was "would not shoot at someone who is pointing a gun at them?" As I have had people pointing guns at me and I did not shoot them I think it fairly clear that I would not shoot someone who is pointing a gun at me under all circumstances. I might under some circumstances, I might not under others. But simply pointing a firearm is not a mandatory "I will shoot" for me.

Al T.
08-02-2013, 09:47 AM
I detest the no-knock warrant

I recall when my brother-in-law took over as Chief Deputy the furor generated when he forbid "no knocks" for drug warrants. The SD's Tac Team guys shut up when he pointed out that there were no sewage facilities in the entire county - everybody was on septic tanks.*

* Equally, the Tac Team guys were irritated that a non-SWAT qualified guy was their boss, what did he know? This ended when he introduced them to the video camera in the hands of the "bad guy" as a training tool. :cool:

BLR
08-02-2013, 10:59 AM
On the other end of the spectrum, my brother-in-law is a sheriff's deputy and is missing part of his left hand from a tactical entry. His partner died that day as well.

They were serving an arrest warrant on a child pornography charge and the guy opened up on them with a 30-30.

That being said, I detest the no-knock warrant and the militarization of police departments.

Why was the tactical entry even done? Were there kids in the house?

Unless there is a hostage, why are these entries even taking place? Seems unduly risky for all involved to satisfy the desire for a bit of excitement.

Chuck Haggard
08-02-2013, 05:33 PM
Why was the tactical entry even done? Were there kids in the house?

Unless there is a hostage, why are these entries even taking place? Seems unduly risky for all involved to satisfy the desire for a bit of excitement.

In that case, I am guessing, to stop the destruction of evidence.

BLR
08-02-2013, 06:08 PM
Wouldn't they have that already? They had to get a warrant, right?

Why not wait till he leaves, search and confiscate the computer, then arrest him out in the open?





Sent from my SGH-T889 using Tapatalk 2

Tamara
08-02-2013, 06:08 PM
In that case, I am guessing, to stop the destruction of evidence.

I know it's Monday morning quarterbacking of the worst kind, but I'll bet he didn't carry that rifle to the mailbox or to walk his dog or whatever. :(

Shellback
08-02-2013, 08:13 PM
The GA case is State v Jones (http://georgiapacking.org/caselaw/statevjones.htm), 289 Ga. App. 176 (2008).

Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 273 (2002) deals with a tip that a person is armed.

United States v. Ubliles, 224 F.3d 213 (2000): paraphrase "knowledge that a person is armed is no different than knowledge that they have a wallet". This case has some very good cites in it.

Chief, I'd like to hear your comments on this and it's applicability. Thanks! Arizona ruling says police can temporarily take guns. (http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/national/gun-control-arizona-ruling-says-police-can-temporarily-take-guns)

A new Arizona court ruling says police can take temporary custody of a person's gun for officer-safety reasons even if the person's contact with police was voluntary.

A man appealing a firearms misconduct conviction argued that Phoenix police wrongfully took his gun after he agreed to talk with officers on a street in a high-crime area.

An Arizona law allows police to take temporary custody of firearms during encounters with people, and the Court of Appeals ruled that includes times when a person is not in custody and merely in consensual contact with police.....

jlw
08-02-2013, 08:23 PM
Chief, I'd like to hear your comments on this and it's applicability. Thanks! Arizona ruling says police can temporarily take guns. (http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/national/gun-control-arizona-ruling-says-police-can-temporarily-take-guns)

Do you have a citation for the law and the actual court ruling? That article doesn't provide nearly enough information to make an intelligent remark on the issue.

In general, SCOTUS has drawn a distinction between armed and armed & presently dangerous.

Shellback
08-02-2013, 10:25 PM
Do you have a citation for the law and the actual court ruling? That article doesn't provide nearly enough information to make an intelligent remark on the issue.

Just found it here. (http://azcourts.gov/Portals/0/OpinionFiles/Div1/2013/1%20CA-CR%2011-0675.pdf) Reading it now. Dude is a convicted felon in possession of a firearm, illegally. Arguing 4th Amendment protection against being searched, RAS, etc.

Consensual encounter, dude admits to having a gun and being a felon... The Orman and Mimms cases that are cited appear to be relevent and interesting.

If appropriate I'll start a new thread on the subject rather than diverting this one further.

jlw
08-03-2013, 10:03 AM
Just found it here. (http://azcourts.gov/Portals/0/OpinionFiles/Div1/2013/1%20CA-CR%2011-0675.pdf) Reading it now. Dude is a convicted felon in possession of a firearm, illegally. Arguing 4th Amendment protection against being searched, RAS, etc.

Consensual encounter, dude admits to having a gun and being a felon... The Orman and Mimms cases that are cited appear to be relevent and interesting.

If appropriate I'll start a new thread on the subject rather than diverting this one further.

Note this passage from the case:


The officer then observed a bulge on Serna’s waistband and asked him if he had any firearms or illegal drugs. Serna said yes.


I added the emphasis.

I'm not aware of AZ case law on the subject, but the GA courts have ruled that it is a reasonable presumption that those involved in the drug trade are armed and presently dangerous. The individual answered affirmatively to a question concerning drugs and firearms prior to any form of search taking place.

Mimms is often improperly interpreted to argue that officers may conduct pat downs on traffic stops. That is not the case. What Mimms appealed was the officers having him get out of his car after being stopped; so, that is what the Court addressed. From there, the Court applied Terry.

This case is not as simple as the article implied. Under my state's law, the search would have been good to go. Here, the AZ court is simply overruling a previous state court ruling. The actual wording of the ruling jumps around a bit, but on the whole it gets to a place consistent with SCTUS rulings, but some of the language takes some odd turns and, in my opinion, infers some things that are not in the rulings being cited.

In short, SCOTUS draws a distinction between being armed from that of being armed & presently dangerous. The tier of the contact is actually of little consequence other than the legality of the initial contact. A tier 1 contact can jump to tier 2 or tier 3 rather easily.

I do not believe that a person being armed alone justifies a search or the seizure of the firearm, and neither does SCOTUS. SCOTUS has actually ruled that knowledge that a person is armed is no different than knowledge that they have a wallet.

Shellback
07-21-2014, 04:18 PM
Jury finds homeowner not guilty. (http://www.ksat.com/content/pns/ksat/news/2014/07/08/jurry-finds-perryman-not-guilty-on-all-counts.html) I'm not sure why the raid occurred but the article doesn't mention any other charges.

After nine hours of deliberation, a jury has found Adrian Perryman, 52, not guilty on all four counts of aggravated assault on a peace officer charges.

He was accused of shooting and wounding a member of SAPD’s Tactical Response Unit during a raid on Perryman’s home in the 1200 block of West Magnolia in the pre-dawn hours of October 26, 2010...

Perryman had testified that he stopped shooting and tossed down his gun when he realized that it was police officers who burst into his home.

After a bit of reading, no officers were shot.

ETA - It does happen. 3 home invaders shouting "POLICE!" (http://www.wtoc.com/story/25972959/home-invaders-posing-as-police-officers-beat-up-stone-mountain-man) as they break in on 7/9/14.

DEKALB COUNTY, GA (CBS46) -
Officers are trying to find three men who shouted "Police!" as they shot their way into a Stone Mountain home early Wednesday morning and assaulted a man who lives there.

The incident happened before 2 a.m. at the home on Mainstreet Park Drive.

According to officers on the scene, the men approached the back door and shouted "Police!" They shot into the door and entered the home. A man and woman were inside the home at the time. The home invaders beat up the man, ransacked a bedroom and left, police said.

It was unclear if the home invaders took anything.

The man drove himself to DeKalb Medical Center, police said.

Malamute
07-21-2014, 09:03 PM
Just read this thread, I wasn't here last year when it started. Very interesting discussion, and very hard subject when things go wrong.

Having officers in standard, easily identifiable uniforms, marked vehicles outside in view when the entry happened, and perhaps the reds and blues going when entry happened could help avoid misidentification as thugs, but theres still many ways things can go badly. I think masks are the worst possible thing for a Law Enforcement Officer to be wearing in any circumstances. It just screams "BAD GUY" to most people.

The septic system angle is good thinking.

Unobtanium
07-22-2014, 01:58 AM
Back in the late 80's I wrote an article for the Police Marksman publication titled Traffic Stops the Armored Car perspective. In that article I outlined 3 incidents where the baddies were outfitted with complete authentic police uniforms. In one case both crew members were killed, in another one crew member was pistol whipped and suffered permanent injury. Shortly after I wrote the article and right before it was published another incident occurred.

Fast forward to 2007 and one of the instructors at one of my NRA Instructors courses knew the gentleman who provided the uniforms to the perps in the incident that the 2 crewmen lost their lives. The incident occurred in and the instructor was from Arizona and my class was outside Pittsburg PA. It's a Small world.

This stuff happens more than most civilian and police realize. Truly I really don't know what I would do if the door came crashing down and people started yelling police. Unless you know you are a criminal yourself any which way your taking a chance that it will end badly.

If someone enters my home violently and I feel my life Is In danger I will do my best to stop them from harming me. I don't care about their clothing.

HCM
07-22-2014, 07:19 AM
Jury finds homeowner not guilty. (http://www.ksat.com/content/pns/ksat/news/2014/07/08/jurry-finds-perryman-not-guilty-on-all-counts.html) I'm not sure why the raid occurred but the article doesn't mention any other charges.


After a bit of reading, no officers were shot.

Just FYSA -since it's not mentioned in the article, in the Perryman case, the officers were at the correct address and recovered meth, drug paraphernalia and additional firearms.

Kranq
08-14-2014, 09:27 PM
Sadly, when I read about wrong address shootouts, I can see that happening to me. I'm in my 50's, was military police, team leader on EST and deployed to hostile areas a lot. I'm as trained or more so than most civilian swat members. Now, I am a "law abiding citizen" who sleeps with an 870 next to the bed and 2 Akitas sleeping where they like in the house. Usually, this means the hallway between the bedroom and the front door.

If I woke up at 2 am to the dogs barking, and my door exploding inward, I'm sure I'd engage "the enemy" before I knew it was LEO who was dispatched to the wrong address as opposed to a homicidal criminal. My family's lives are more important to me than anyone else's. Defending them is my responsibility.

No evidence is worth people who should be on the same team killing each other. Just my 2 cents.

KevinB
08-15-2014, 10:22 AM
Sadly, when I read about wrong address shootouts, I can see that happening to me. I'm in my 50's, was military police, team leader on EST and deployed to hostile areas a lot. I'm as trained or more so than most civilian swat members.


Having dealt with Army MP SRT teams and civilian teams, I would say your comment is a large stretch.
There are teams that are exceptional better than all but the Mil SMU's, and those that probably should not do much more than open range practice.


Now, I am a "law abiding citizen" who sleeps with an 870 next to the bed and 2 Akitas sleeping where they like in the house. Usually, this means the hallway between the bedroom and the front door.
If I woke up at 2 am to the dogs barking, and my door exploding inward, I'm sure I'd engage "the enemy" before I knew it was LEO who was dispatched to the wrong address as opposed to a homicidal criminal. My family's lives are more important to me than anyone else's. Defending them is my responsibility.

No evidence is worth people who should be on the same team killing each other. Just my 2 cents.

Sample of one - but IF you fire on Police your going to get killed, right wrong or indifferent.

Even our "no knock" warrants will get a discernable Police presence upon entry. Trucks with Lights - PA used upon door breach etc.

Odd are that criminals will not be breaching your door with entry tools and dressed in a similar uniform and have POLICE (or SHERIFF, MARSHALL, FBI, DEA etc.) on their vests.

RoyGBiv
08-15-2014, 10:45 AM
Odd are that criminals will not be breaching your door with entry tools and dressed in a similar uniform and have POLICE (or SHERIFF, MARSHALL, FBI, DEA etc.) on their vests.
When it comes to life and safety, "odds are" is not a term I care to use.
"Odds are" that I'll never need to use my concealed carry gun...

30 seconds of Googling...
http://www.staceypageonline.com/2014/03/28/home-invasion-suspects-dressed-as-police/

http://www.wbtv.com/story/19154058/home-invasion-suspect-wearing-law-enforcement-uniform

http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2013-05-23/news/fl-miramar-home-invasion-20130523_1_miramar-home-miramar-man-miramar-officers

Armed Robbery of Jewelry Stores by Men in Police Uniforms
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b50_1397141714

Shellback
08-15-2014, 11:48 AM
Odd are that criminals will not be breaching your door with entry tools and dressed in a similar uniform and have POLICE (or SHERIFF, MARSHALL, FBI, DEA etc.) on their vests.
Problem being is when they roll in looking like the guys below.

These are photos of what the officers were wearing on the Ogden, UT raid, taken from this article. (http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/56403563-219/stewart-police-richards-officers.html.csp)

http://archive.sltrib.com/images/2013/0605/stewart_060513~10.jpg

http://archive.sltrib.com/images/2013/0605/stewart_060513~11.jpg

This photo shows an official Weber Morgan Narcotics Strike Force hoody worn by one of the officers as he entered Matthew David Stewart's house in Ogden on January 4, 2012.

http://archive.sltrib.com/images/2013/0605/stewart_060513~16.jpg

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSq_AVWcdL-ycKl3j8ZcxjrKeH5UzfXxWqW2Ct_FvSSnF8I8ukaew

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRp1o-4S4eGUkSETDFu7bRnjglz-3Col_1FqyhNpLpHPiTMUQXS

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR694L090jEVbA_v0wq8sSW9-VHKu2yjgJOOPtlRCkuqbMFQqXX

KevinB
08-15-2014, 12:09 PM
I agree -- and I am a FIRM believer in entries being down by SWAT/ERT teams in FULL gear.

Shooting me in my uniform, plates, helmet, gasmask and POLICE patches alongside fellow teammates is a little hard to defend. In many jurisdictions U/C officers are NOT legally allowed to do entries - they may enter after the site is secure for ID etc purposes

Stephen
08-15-2014, 12:23 PM
Problem being is when they roll in looking like the guys below.

These are photos of what the officers were wearing on the Ogden, UT raid, taken from this article. (http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/56403563-219/stewart-police-richards-officers.html.csp)


I was not familiar with this case, but that level of incompetence and injustice is unbelievable. And they charged him with murder and sought the death penalty!

From the article:

Thirty-one 9mm shell casings — fired by Stewart's gun — were found at the scene, Richards said, and around 250 shots were fired by law enforcement. Police officers suffered a total of 17 bullet wounds, while Stewart was shot twice.

A pothead suddenly woken up completely naked hit with 17 out of 31 rounds with a pistol, and the po-po with all their toys went 2 for 250. Sounds about right. This pathetic episode combined with Chucks quote below makes me wonder how many completely incompetent LEOs are out there kicking in doors. Sometimes wrong doors, and often just for pot. Massive amounts of derp all around.



I have a friend who was on a team up in Tam's neck of the woods. He left the team because they had almost zero standards for training, never went outside of their own agency for training and validation, never participated in stuff like the NTOA, etc.
That their team bought a 7" DPMS Panther "Kitty Cat" for everyone on the team because SWAT guys need short guns makes Baby Jesus weep. That choice of firearm should in and of itself let anyone who knows anything about ARs know said team is rampant with Dunning-Kruger effect.

They are also using locally made reloads for use in said guns, except for a few guys who he found carrying Wolf in their guns. Seriously.

Maybe all the politicians currently grandstanding on the militarization of the police should address the training of the police instead.

cclaxton
08-15-2014, 12:40 PM
The way things are going cops are going to just assume that EVERY HOUSE they have a warrant for, or EVERY PERSON they have an arrest warrant for is armed and dangerous, and ready to kill cops. Cops are becoming too risk averse, along with the rest of society.

No-knock warrants should be banned. They are too dangerous to LE's and the occupants of the dwelling. Use the time you have.
LE's should be good enough to arrest a person in the open. Once all residents are cleared from the home, then they can do the search. This protects innocent people and mistaken addresses by the investigators.
Active shooters, crime-in-progress, hostage, suicide, and terrorist-related the exceptions. But definition of a terrorist should raise to a high bar.
Cody

KevinB
08-15-2014, 12:58 PM
The way things are going cops are going to just assume that EVERY HOUSE they have a warrant for, or EVERY PERSON they have an arrest warrant for is armed and dangerous, and ready to kill cops. Cops are becoming too risk averse, along with the rest of society.

No-knock warrants should be banned. They are too dangerous to LE's and the occupants of the dwelling. Use the time you have.
LE's should be good enough to arrest a person in the open. Once all residents are cleared from the home, then they can do the search. This protects innocent people and mistaken addresses by the investigators.
Active shooters, crime-in-progress, hostage, suicide, and terrorist-related the exceptions. But definition of a terrorist should raise to a high bar.
Cody

Please step back in your lane.

There are times for no-knock warrants - violent offenders who are known to be armed.

I'm a big fan of call out's - but there are time when dealing with a 2%'er that 'kick door turn left' is the best option.

Remember its the JUDGE who approves the warrant.

Your entire no-knock criteria are already no warrant requirements.

benEzra
08-15-2014, 01:27 PM
Having dealt with Army MP SRT teams and civilian teams, I would say your comment is a large stretch.
There are teams that are exceptional better than all but the Mil SMU's, and those that probably should not do much more than open range practice.
There are definitely top-notch teams, but as you point out, that level of training is not universal and probably not typical. And those teams that are clown-shoes enough to raid the wrong house are often clown-shoes in other ways as well. The video of the Jose Guerena raid comes to mind.


Odd are that criminals will not be breaching your door with entry tools and dressed in a similar uniform and have POLICE (or SHERIFF, MARSHALL, FBI, DEA etc.) on their vests.
How is a homeowner able to tell the details of what the black-clad screaming person behind the 120-lumen light is wearing, other than the fact that they just kicked in the door and appear to be pointing a long gun at your family? How is the homeowner able to determine during a dynamic entry the manner in which the door was breached?

The whole point of a dynamic entry is to prevent the target of the raid from having time to react in a thoughtful manner, which is one reason why the use of such entries in non-critical circumstances needs to be dialed way back, IMO.

As to odds, unless SWAT teams are now raiding the wrong address more often than criminal occupied-home invasions (which I seriously doubt is the case), then the odds are that the people kicking in the door of a law-abiding citizen are unlikely to be LEOs. Obviously dealing drugs or otherwise living on the edge would alter that risk calculus, but generally speaking the law-abiding have a legitimate expectation that anyone kicking their door in and pointing guns at them is unlikely to be a LEO. In my neck of the woods, I am aware of multiple armed home invasions in the last decade, and zero wrong-address raids by our local LEOs, and I suspect that is true of most jurisdictions.

The FBI as recently as 1997 pointed out that a major purpose of requiring the presentation of a warrant to a homeowner prior to entry was to protect officers and homeowners from cases of mistaken identity.

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Knock+and+announce%3A+a+Fourth+Amendment+standard-a020213083

"The rule serves to protect both the individual citizen and the police from the risk of harm and the potential for violence that may occur as a result of an unannounced entry. Announcement protects officers by ensuring that they are not 'mistaken for prowlers and shot down by a fearful householder.' Innocent citizens also are protected from law enforcement officers who mistakenly might shoot armed occupants who merely are trying to defend themselves from who they preceive to be armed intruders."

One major problem is that "knock and announce" in some jurisdictions has changed from "knock and wait for the homeowner to answer the door, then present her/him with the warrant" to "pound on the door, wait x seconds, then conduct a full-on dynamic entry". In the case of a wrong-address raid, that is in practical terms little different from a no-knock.

KevinB
08-15-2014, 01:50 PM
Most States has rules on Knock and Wait, as far as time limits go.

When done properly these is a pre-raid recon and entire target package layed out for the mission, so you do not have the wrong addy...

That is the the utility of U/C or plainclothes personnel in raid - watching the site prior to, and up to arrival of a uniformed team (with a uniformed perimeter/containment team).


Awful lot of folks are wrapping their tinfoil too tight these days about being worried LE are coming down their door - unless a lot of folks on this board are worried about something they do off this board affecting their odds...

RoyGBiv
08-15-2014, 02:08 PM
Awful lot of folks are wrapping their tinfoil too tight these days about being worried LE are coming down their door - unless a lot of folks on this board are worried about something they do off this board affecting their odds...

We're having a "what if" discussion. Thanks for bringing the ice. :D


As to odds, unless SWAT teams are now raiding the wrong address more often than criminal occupied-home invasions (which I seriously doubt is the case), then the odds are that the people kicking in the door of a law-abiding citizen are unlikely to be LEOs. Obviously dealing drugs or otherwise living on the edge would alter that risk calculus, but generally speaking the law-abiding have a legitimate expectation that anyone kicking their door in and pointing guns at them is unlikely to be a LEO. In my neck of the woods, I am aware of multiple armed home invasions in the last decade, and zero wrong-address raids by our local LEOs, and I suspect that is true of most jurisdictions.
Thanks for saying it better than I did.

Stephen
08-15-2014, 02:16 PM
When done properly...

There's the problem. Things often aren't done properly. The issue isn't how raids should go.


Awful lot of folks are wrapping their tinfoil too tight these days about being worried LE are coming down their door - unless a lot of folks on this board are worried about something they do off this board affecting their odds...

So you're accusing posters here of being criminals?

cclaxton
08-15-2014, 02:19 PM
Please step back in your lane.
There are times for no-knock warrants - violent offenders who are known to be armed.
I'm a big fan of call out's - but there are time when dealing with a 2%'er that 'kick door turn left' is the best option.
Remember its the JUDGE who approves the warrant.
Your entire no-knock criteria are already no warrant requirements.
The problem is that once you approve any no-knocks, then many LE's will want ALL of them to be no-knocks. And, judges are just too easily persuaded, especially in some jurisdictions. There isn't any advocate for the homeowner in court when the cops are asking for that warrant. If the warrant system worked properly then judges wouldn't approve warrants on the wrong people or warrants on the wrong house, but that happens all the time. Also, the level of danger to occupants and to LEO's is not a consideration.

Two incidents in Fairfax County come to mind:
The unarmed mother of four children was killed, shot through a door during a no-knock warrant for another individual;
In October of 1988, cops raided a house looking for a murder suspect. After searching the upper portion of the house, they went into the basement were an elderly couple from the Dominican Republic were renting a single room. They didn’t speak English. They were awakened by the cops kicking in their bedroom door. Not knowing what to expect, the man grabbed a pistol. The cops shot him in the stomach and killed his wife, shooting her five times in the throat and face. In all the cops fired 11 shots in a matter of seconds. Before they left, the cops ransacked the room, taking the room’s door with them as evidence. When asked to explain the cops actions, the chief of police became indignant and told reporters “We’re not going to explain who did what or who said what” The Board of Supervisors leaped into action and demanded an investigation of the by the States Attorney General’s office….naw, that didn’t happen and it never will happen.

The babysitter killed who was sleeping on the living room sofa when the SWAT team entered the home;

John Geer being shot in his home when they could have easily waited him out.

The use of SWAT teams for an alcohol license inspection is now legal. It is totally out of control. This is the police state we all fear coming to our communities right in front of our eyes. http://www.salon.com/2013/07/07/%E2%80%9Cwhy_did_you_shoot_me_i_was_reading_a_book _the_new_warrior_cop_is_out_of_control/

Those three people are dead, and their children are motherless....
When you can GUARANTEE to me that you won't shoot an innocent person while serving an arrest warrant, and when you can GUARANTEE you won't enter the WRONG HOME, I will back you 100%. Until the processes are foolproof, no-knock's should be banned. And, SWAT teams should learn how to defuse things without a squadron of helmets and flak jackets and steel-toed boots.

Cody

cclaxton
08-15-2014, 02:31 PM
Most States has rules on Knock and Wait, as far as time limits go.

When done properly these is a pre-raid recon and entire target package layed out for the mission, so you do not have the wrong addy...

That is the the utility of U/C or plainclothes personnel in raid - watching the site prior to, and up to arrival of a uniformed team (with a uniformed perimeter/containment team).

Awful lot of folks are wrapping their tinfoil too tight these days about being worried LE are coming down their door - unless a lot of folks on this board are worried about something they do off this board affecting their odds...
Police get it wrong too often and too many people have been killed, falsely imprisoned, had their homes invaded by mistake, and left to pay for the damages on their own. It is out of control. I don't agree with everything in this website, nor the tone that is taken, but the list of things wrong with Fairfax County Police is long.
http://unstablecopsinamerica.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-fairfax-county-police-out-of-control.html
Don't get me wrong: I like Fairfax County Police. They have always treated me respectfully and I have had to call them on a few occasions for some things that happened over my 23 years here. I see them as a very professional organization. And most of this is not the police officers themselves...they are trying to do a job. The problem is the policies and the orders coming from leadership on HOW to do the job and WHAT the job should be. Too often things are NOT "done properly" and they end up killing someone, being charged with a crime they don't deserve, or paying costs they should have never had to pay.
Public Safety means protecting everyone, not just cops.
Cody

Sheep Have Wool
08-15-2014, 02:36 PM
Awful lot of folks are wrapping their tinfoil too tight these days about being worried LE are coming down their door - unless a lot of folks on this board are worried about something they do off this board affecting their odds...

I'm a law abiding citizen. Am I likely to have this happen to me? Nope. But I can't think of very many situations that are more likely to have a negative outcome, because, as a law abiding citizen, I am absolutely going to assume that someone kicking down my door in the middle of the night is a bad guy.


When done properly these is a pre-raid recon and entire target package layed out for the mission, so you do not have the wrong addy...

Emphasis mine. I'm sure most teams are well-trained, and the use of pre-raid recon and/or checklists and/or confirmation assures that mistakes like this don't happen. Sadly, the teams lead by idiots and comprised of morons also go on raids, and they don't have you along to do their mission planning. This can lead to bad things happening, as demonstrated by all the news articles in this thread.

We follow Blackstone's formulation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone's_formulation) in every other aspect of our legal process. Why should search warrants be different?

John Hearne
08-15-2014, 02:54 PM
Police get it wrong too often and too many people have been killed, falsely imprisoned, had their homes invaded by mistake, and left to pay for the damages on their own. It is out of control.

I am confused as to how you reach this conclusion. One of the first lessons you learn in any kind of statistical/numerical analysis is that numbers are fairly worthless. The best way to understand how common or uncommon something is is to examine it's frequency - that is it's rate. Unless we know how many warrants have been served, the breakdown of those warrants, and the results, it is fairly impossible to really tell if something is happening too often. I get that you care deeply about this but your argument reminds me of the pro-gun control people who argue that "if just one child is saved" we can justify this action.

The courts, going back to our Founding Fathers, seem to understand these issues better than you. They did not say you have the right to be free from searches and no court in the U.S. has EVER held this. The Fourth Amendment discusses reasonable searches and requires that an overseeing official confirm that there is probable cause to believe that fruits and instrumentalities of a crime(s) are present. It doesn't say anything about 100% certainty - we convict people and send them to prison at less than 100% certainty. What is or is not reasonable can be debated but there is a fairly strong and well established body of case law that clarifies these issues.

No Knock warrants evolved for a reason - someone didn't just decide to impose a little tyranny for the fun of it. No knock warrants exist because some people are a danger to everyone and especially the police trying to prosecute them. There are times when "fair play" has no role whatsoever. Dude is going to jail, his stuff is going to get searched and we need to make this happen as painlessly (for everyone) as possible. This means bringing overwhelming force and shutting down any potential opposition before it can start.

Whether you like it or not, police need evidence to proof a case in court. They need to collect this evidence without the criminal destroying it. If you are OK with sending people to prison without anything but the probable cause in a search warrant then I guess we can forgo these pesky judicial proceedings. If you want something like due process, you have to accept the fact that search warrants are PART of that due process.

You keeps naively stating that officers can arrest suspects away from their residences. If it worked well, cops would be doing it. The nice thing about arresting someone at their residence and serving a search warrant concurrently is that the likely collateral damage is contained within that residence and you minimize flight concerns. If they search the house while the bad guy is not there and he finds out, guess what, he runs. If they arrest the bad guy but the residents find out, guess what, evidence gets destroyed.

This is not a college philosophy class where there are perfect answers. This is the real world where every option sucks. The challenge lies in picking the option that sucks less. To quote the Supreme Court of the United States, when they tried to discern the lesser of the evils:


"We think it appropriate in this process to take into account not only the number of lives at risk, but also their relative culpability. It was respondent, after all, who intentionally placed himself and the public in danger by unlawfully engaging in the reckless, high speed flight that ultimately produced the choice between two evils that Scott confronted."

I have seen an honest to god court case where the widow of the deceased bad guy attempted to arrest him in a public place, using a ruse like everyone thinks they should have done with David Koresh. Two officers and the suspect died in that event.

David Armstrong
08-15-2014, 03:12 PM
Having dealt with Army MP SRT teams and civilian teams, I would say your comment is a large stretch.
There are teams that are exceptional better than all but the Mil SMU's, and those that probably should not do much more than open range practice.
I think the same can be said in the reverse. There are plenty of civilian swat members that are woefully under-trained and there are plenty of MP SRTs that are very well trained. Which group would have the highest chance of competence is not something I'd want to bet a lot on.

BillP
08-15-2014, 03:12 PM
Reminder: all Policing is regional. I live in a very large and non-liberal state. No - knock warrants are prohibited by law here. We have a legal requirement to knock and announce, and the time before breaching in lieu of non-admittance must be objectively reasonable.

Sheep Have Wool
08-15-2014, 03:40 PM
The "no-knock vs. no warrant" argument is specious. I don't think anyone reasonable thinks that the police should quit serving warrants.

In my mind, the question is "no-knock vs. surround-and-call or knock-announce-wait." What is no-knock doing that these other options can't do? If the answer is "they'll flush a completely insignificant portion illegal drugs!", my give-a-shit-o-meter will fail to ping.

John Hearne
08-15-2014, 04:20 PM
The "no-knock vs. no warrant" argument is specious. I don't think anyone reasonable thinks that the police should quit serving warrants...In my mind, the question is "no-knock vs. surround-and-call or knock-announce-wait." What is no-knock doing that these other options can't do? If the answer is "they'll flush a completely insignificant portion illegal drugs!", my give-a-shit-o-meter will fail to ping.

It may be specious but it has been raised in recent discussions of police conduct.

There are two types of warrants we need to consider, search and arrest. The evidence of crimes that can be quickly destroyed is NOT limited to drug crimes. I find it absurd to suggest that the police announce their intentions and then wait until the suspect decides to comply. First off, what if he doesn't. This isn't TV and sometimes the suspects don't comply with verbal instructions. Second, how much time to you need to destroy electronic media, paper records, and/or destroy other items that are fruits and/or instrumentalities of a crime? If police know that the nature of the investigation or nature of the suspect suggest the likelihood of evidence destruction then the no-knock should stay on the table.

Not all criminals are stupid. Consider this - if we make the rules so clear and neat, and the police will ONLY ever surround and announce, then you end up with situations in which suspects can start fires, waiting until they're going good, and then wandering out when they feel like it. It's like those lovely unintended consequences that experienced people can see coming but the folks living in isolation from reality can't even begin to comprehend.

When it comes to serving arrest warrants, some times the only way to eliminate or minimize the damage of resistance is to offer sudden, overwhelming force. The problems with serving arrest warrants outside of the suspect's residence have already been addressed. If you want a reminder of how well surround and announce worked in the 30's, I suggest you read Public Enemy - the book that is.

Your suggestion that no-knock warrants are never necessary flies in the face of something you probably lack - experience.

Sheep Have Wool
08-15-2014, 05:05 PM
It may be specious but it has been raised in recent discussions of police conduct.
Well, not by me, and as I said: I don't think that's reasonable to state.


The evidence of crimes that can be quickly destroyed is NOT limited to drug crimes.
I'm willing to accept that evidence will sometimes be lost. Undoubtedly, a criminal that should be put away will go free. That sucks. I'm still waiting for the response to my previous question, though.


We follow Blackstone's formulation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone's_formulation) in every other aspect of our legal process. Why should search warrants be different?


I find it absurd to suggest that the police announce their intentions and then wait until the suspect decides to comply. First off, what if he doesn't. This isn't TV and sometimes the suspects don't comply with verbal instructions.
Someone will probably have to stick around until he/she comes out! For the record, I'd prefer the people that do the waiting to be as elite/well-trained a team as possible. They can bring a tank, if they want.


Second, how much time to you need to destroy electronic media, paper records, and/or destroy other items that are fruits and/or instrumentalities of a crime? If police know that the nature of the investigation or nature of the suspect suggest the likelihood of evidence destruction then the no-knock should stay on the table.
Why? Because evidence will be destroyed? See above.


Not all criminals are stupid. Consider this - if we make the rules so clear and neat, and the police will ONLY ever surround and announce, then you end up with situations in which suspects can start fires, waiting until they're going good, and then wandering out when they feel like it. It's like those lovely unintended consequences that experienced people can see coming but the folks living in isolation from reality can't even begin to comprehend.
Happily, rather than just assume we know what criminals will start to do if no-knock warrants are banned, we can just look at the places that don't allow them. Is there a significant uptick in house fires?


When it comes to serving arrest warrants, some times the only way to eliminate or minimize the damage of resistance is to offer sudden, overwhelming force. The problems with serving arrest warrants outside of the suspect's residence have already been addressed. If you want a reminder of how well surround and announce worked in the 30's, I suggest you read Public Enemy - the book that is.
I'll certainly check it out, but I'm not particularly interested in what happened during the 30s. I'd much prefer to look at contemporary jurisdictions that have implemented a no no-knock policy.

Rather than each side of this discussion assuming that they know what will happen, let's look at the data. What does it show? (That's a legitimate question: I have no idea what it says.)

Coyotesfan97
08-15-2014, 06:21 PM
It may be specious but it has been raised in recent discussions of police conduct.

There are two types of warrants we need to consider, search and arrest. The evidence of crimes that can be quickly destroyed is NOT limited to drug crimes. I find it absurd to suggest that the police announce their intentions and then wait until the suspect decides to comply. First off, what if he doesn't. This isn't TV and sometimes the suspects don't comply with verbal instructions. Second, how much time to you need to destroy electronic media, paper records, and/or destroy other items that are fruits and/or instrumentalities of a crime? If police know that the nature of the investigation or nature of the suspect suggest the likelihood of evidence destruction then the no-knock should stay on the table.

Not all criminals are stupid. Consider this - if we make the rules so clear and neat, and the police will ONLY ever surround and announce, then you end up with situations in which suspects can start fires, waiting until they're going good, and then wandering out when they feel like it. It's like those lovely unintended consequences that experienced people can see coming but the folks living in isolation from reality can't even begin to comprehend.

When it comes to serving arrest warrants, some times the only way to eliminate or minimize the damage of resistance is to offer sudden, overwhelming force. The problems with serving arrest warrants outside of the suspect's residence have already been addressed. If you want a reminder of how well surround and announce worked in the 30's, I suggest you read Public Enemy - the book that is.

Your suggestion that no-knock warrants are never necessary flies in the face of something you probably lack - experience.

I was on SWAT for 15 years. I never participated in a no knock warrant. They are available here but must be justified in the warrant and approved by the Judge. You have to do the same for a night time exception. They are a tool that is available but at least on my former Team one that is rarely used.

We have been using surround and callouts for over 10 years. We evolved from serving warrants dynamically to using breech and holds with a slow and deliberate search to surround and callouts with a slow and deliberate search.

A surround and callout doesn't mean you sit outside twiddling your thumbs griping I wish this guy would come out. You announce your presence, tell them you have a search warrant, and tell them to come out. If they don't come out you persuade them to. You make it extremely uncomfortable to be inside the house. Gas is going in and windows might be ported and gas deployed. At some point you are going to have to start clearing the house. A dog will probably lead the way. It's usually not a long term event.

A suspect could start a fire. I've never seen one do that on a surround and call. I've heard suspects say they came out because they knew we would destroy their house before coming into get them.

Dudes can flush evidence even on a no knock dynamic warrant depending where they are in the house. We'll turn off the water when we start the warrant service. Electronic evidence can be destroyed with the push of a button. If its a paper warrant that usually means a lot of documents. Frankly the SWAT mentality is I'm not dying to save your evidence.

I've read Public Enemies and it documented some pretty good SNAFUs. Are you equating something like Little Bohemia=surround and calls today?

Shellback
08-15-2014, 06:41 PM
If they don't come out you persuade them to. You make it extremely uncomfortable to be inside the house.

Just kill the electricity and knock out their A/C in the summer time. They'll come out in short order. :)

Coyotesfan97
08-15-2014, 06:42 PM
LOL that's been done too! Sweat opens the pores so they get more effect from the gas.

Kranq
08-15-2014, 10:27 PM
Is this likely to happen to me? Hell no, I'm an ex-soldier working for the army in a job that requires a high end clearance. The point in my previous post was...

In the middle of the night, if ripped out of a deep sleep to hell breaking loose (door coming down, dogs barking, gun fire of dogs being killed), there are very few "good guys". They ALL share my last name. My immediate reaction is to engage and barricade, while expecting that my wife is calling 911 for help. Unfortunately for me, I'd get smoked, immediately if they are worth a shit. At least my surviving family would never have to work again after the law suits.

LEO are here to help civilians. Just like the rest of us, your average patrol officer has a family that he/she is trying to provide for and wants to be safe. We pay them very little to do a job most of us do not want to do, but need done. They deserve our support. Like every profession, occasionally a piece of shit slips through the process who needs to be fired. Every department has a process for identifying them, if you feel that you have been wronged, exercise the process. Give it time, they are government employees.

As citizen if I make a mistake and accidentally kill someone, the best I can look forward to is.. manslaughter? In this scenario, a swat officer is a tool (sorry guys). The person who requested and authorized the mistake should be charged, not the tool. The moral of the story, be sure of your target before you pull the trigger, even if your a politician.

KevinB
08-16-2014, 01:00 AM
So you're accusing posters here of being criminals?
I was not -- I was just trying to understand why some law abiding citizen of sound mind and judgment where concerned about that...

For the record I do not like No-Knock's unless given no other choice.

Areas where I like No-Knocks are multiple family dwelling's - like an apartment building where safety of the neighbors is more important IF (big if) the suspect is known to be armed and has a violent history.
Also trailer parks that have "members known hostile to LE" in their midst that are not the target- as you have a better chance of getting in and out without neighborhood gun play (and before some laugh - it happens more in the US then gets portrayed).


Seizure of evidence - turn off the guys water - watch him flush it all way now... tell the Narcotics guys to buy a plunger and take a water sample.


I'm very pro wait for the guy -- CS/CN gas is a good motivator if he is unresponsive after a time - or is endangering folks.


WRT the comment on blind bangs -- the only time CONUS it can be acceptable to blindly toss NFDD's is if there's rounds coming from the structure that are a threat to the public or LE on scene.


I meant to post above 4 or so hours ago some was OTBE


Kranq -- I'm tracking you -
- I don't shoot dog's, taser or preferably drug them in food.

Duces Tecum
08-16-2014, 10:30 AM
So, what magic thing can help me distinguish the good guys making a mistake crossing my threshold from something that requires immediate force in response?

Vacating qualified immunity?

It isn't simply a matter of identifying who is a cop and who is not. It's that this stuff happens with cops, and it seems to be largely carelessness. It is difficult to imagine why the taxpayers should subsidize a lack of ordinary care.

KevinB
08-17-2014, 09:02 AM
Vacating qualified immunity?

It isn't simply a matter of identifying who is a cop and who is not. It's that this stuff happens with cops, and it seems to be largely carelessness. It is difficult to imagine why the taxpayers should subsidize a lack of ordinary care.

Never happen.

And honestly you don't want to get rid of it.

Qualified Immunity is not the issue - take a look around the country LE is 99.99% of the time doing a fantastic job -- accidents happen, and sometimes there are issues in Departments - however I see these as localized issues that are regional issues - and just like Politics - there are means in place to fix those.

45dotACP
08-17-2014, 01:28 PM
This thread is very enlightening to me. I have no reason to fear a dynamic police entry and given the very low frequency of no knock warrants being issued, would it be unreasonable for one to ascend straight to Defcon 1 if someone shatters the front door yelling "Police" ? In other words, is it more likely a home invasion crew would imitate LEO's than a law abiding citizen get mistakenly dynamically breached by SWAT?

Sidenote, I was always taught to call 911 if the police show up. Ostensibly, so you can be sure it is them. Can happen with traffic stops too.

John Hearne
08-17-2014, 01:48 PM
In other words, is it more likely a home invasion crew would imitate LEO's than a law abiding citizen get mistakenly dynamically breached by SWAT?


The only other potential situation I see that could bring the police to your house is if you didn't secure your wireless router and someone in your neighborhood was using it to download child pornography.

45dotACP
08-17-2014, 02:00 PM
The only other potential situation I see that could bring the police to your house is if you didn't secure your wireless router and someone in your neighborhood was using it to download child pornography.
Good point. Fortunately, my router password probably makes the NSA curse my name whilst illegally collecting my info :cool:

Shellback
08-17-2014, 06:52 PM
The only other potential situation I see that could bring the police to your house is if you didn't secure your wireless router and someone in your neighborhood was using it to download child pornography.

That did happen in Indiana with a SWAT team (http://www.courierpress.com/news/swat-team-enters-home-people-inside-arent) and an unsuspecting lady who had her wireless router used by someone to post threats about the local police online. Video of raid below.


http://youtu.be/ZXqbLzHd_oo

RoyGBiv
08-17-2014, 11:51 PM
The only other potential situation I see that could bring the police to your house is if you didn't secure your wireless router and someone in your neighborhood was using it to download child pornography.

Here's a true story.

I'm home one sunny day, working in my home office upstairs. My wife is working in her office, downstairs. It's about 1:PM.

Voice: Hello!! Police!! Hello!!
Me: (thinking: clearly that voice is INSIDE my house)
Me: (move to front of house, look for squad)
Wife: to me from bottom of stairs "There's a police officer here (pointing to side door, out of my view)"
Me: Is he in uniform?
Wife: What?
Me: Is he in uniform, if not you should start running (me: shows wife gun in hand)
Wife: Yes, he's in uniform
Me: (looks further down street and sees squad)

Debrief: Officer got an alarm call to a house around the block with the same house number. He spent enough time with us to think it was a false alarm and went on his way, but returned later to apologize when he realized his error.

Lesson: Shit happens.

cclaxton
08-18-2014, 10:02 AM
There are just too many errors made by LE and LE Leadership to continue the growth in no-knock warrants, especially for non-violent crimes. I don't agree with everything in this article, but I think it highlights the alarming growth of heavily armed home assaults that are not necessary and create lethal risks to occupants and LEO's. "Overwhelming force" is only required when we know we have a violent situation, and there is no option to take the suspect in the open while walking to his car, driving the streets, walking the sidewalks, etc. Catching violent offenders and shutting down meth-labs is important, but the safety of the occupants and the LEO's needs to be managed in a way that lowers the level of confrontation and thus the chance mistakes will be made. Take a step back and look at what we are doing to our society...the 4th amendment is just about meaningless these days. No-knock warrants should be banned until we can guarantee they can be done accurately, guaranteeing no innocents will be killed or seriously injured in the process, and guaranteeing that the State will make suspects financially whole if they destroy their property and no conviction occurred.

http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/balko_whitepaper_2006.pdf
Cody

cclaxton
08-18-2014, 10:42 AM
That did happen in Indiana with a SWAT team (http://www.courierpress.com/news/swat-team-enters-home-people-inside-arent) and an unsuspecting lady who had her wireless router used by someone to post threats about the local police online. Video of raid below.


http://youtu.be/ZXqbLzHd_oo
This is what I am talking about. There are hundreds of these kinds of mistakes across the country. This has to stop. What are we doing to America?
Cody

cclaxton
08-18-2014, 10:46 AM
This thread is very enlightening to me. I have no reason to fear a dynamic police entry and given the very low frequency of no knock warrants being issued, would it be unreasonable for one to ascend straight to Defcon 1 if someone shatters the front door yelling "Police" ? In other words, is it more likely a home invasion crew would imitate LEO's than a law abiding citizen get mistakenly dynamically breached by SWAT?

Sidenote, I was always taught to call 911 if the police show up. Ostensibly, so you can be sure it is them. Can happen with traffic stops too.

70-80,000 no-knock warrants a year?...You call that a "low frequency?" I call that alarming and tyrannical. Guess which minorities get the majority of no-knocks?
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2011-02-14-noknock14_ST_N.htm
Cody

LittleLebowski
08-18-2014, 10:59 AM
70-80,000 no-knock warrants a year?...You call that a "low frequency?" I call that alarming and tyrannical. Guess which minorities get the majority of no-knocks?
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2011-02-14-noknock14_ST_N.htm
Cody

Do you think these no knocks are racially motivated?

cclaxton
08-18-2014, 11:29 AM
Do you think these no knocks are racially motivated?
Well, it's hard to generalize. Having grown up in the south, and seeing how slowly change occurs there, I would bet there are some cases that are racially motivated, meaning there are racists on the police force want to keep minorities down. More likely is that many in the South are racially biased, meaning a judge is more likely to issue a no-knock warrant in a predominantly poor black neighborhood than a wealthy white neighborhood or LEO leaders are more likely to send a SWAT team into a poor black neighborhood. This happens in other parts of the country, too, I just am more familiar with the South. Generally, though, I don't think no-knocks are racially motivated, but, just like the conviction and incarceration rates for whites and blacks, there is a systemic bias that results in discriminatory results. Now, solving this problem is not easy, and I don't have all the answers. But recognizing the problems is a good start.
Cody

LittleLebowski
08-18-2014, 11:30 AM
Well, it's hard to generalize. Having grown up in the south, and seeing how slowly change occurs there, I would bet there are some cases that are racially motivated, meaning there are racists on the police force want to keep minorities down. More likely is that many in the South are racially biased, meaning a judge is more likely to issue a no-knock warrant in a predominantly poor black neighborhood than a wealthy white neighborhood or LEO leaders are more likely to send a SWAT team into a poor black neighborhood. This happens in other parts of the country, too, I just am more familiar with the South. Generally, though, I don't think no-knocks are racially motivated, but, just like the conviction and incarceration rates for whites and blacks, there is a systemic bias that results in discriminatory results. Now, solving this problem is not easy, and I don't have all the answers. But recognizing the problems is a good start.
Cody

So you think bias is why the incarceration rate is so much higher for blacks?

cclaxton
08-18-2014, 11:41 AM
So you think bias is why the incarceration rate is so much higher for blacks?
Obviously not all of it, but there are much higher death penalty convictions for blacks than for whites, for instance. Black teens caught with weed are more likely to end up doing jail time as opposed to white kids with wealthier parents. Lack of good legal representation for poor teens plays a big role there.

Again, it's hard to generalize. Every jurisdiction is going to be different. I am very familiar with Florida, and the resulting conviction rates are dramatically different than other southern states.
Cody

LittleLebowski
08-18-2014, 11:46 AM
Obviously not all of it, but there are much higher death penalty convictions for blacks than for whites, for instance. Black teens caught with weed are more likely to end up doing jail time as opposed to white kids with wealthier parents. Lack of good legal representation for poor teens plays a big role there.

Again, it's hard to generalize. Every jurisdiction is going to be different. I am very familiar with Florida, and the resulting conviction rates are dramatically different than other southern states.
Cody

I wonder if much of that has anything to do with the disparity in income and family support? I'd look at that before assuming racial bias.

Tamara
08-18-2014, 04:38 PM
"How slowly change happens in the South"?

We must have grown up in different Souths.

Chuck Whitlock
08-18-2014, 06:21 PM
Well, it's hard to generalize. Having grown up in the south, and seeing how slowly change occurs there, I would bet there are some cases that are racially motivated, meaning there are racists on the police force want to keep minorities down. More likely is that many in the South are racially biased, meaning a judge is more likely to issue a no-knock warrant in a predominantly poor black neighborhood than a wealthy white neighborhood or LEO leaders are more likely to send a SWAT team into a poor black neighborhood. This happens in other parts of the country, too, I just am more familiar with the South. Generally, though, I don't think no-knocks are racially motivated, but, just like the conviction and incarceration rates for whites and blacks, there is a systemic bias that results in discriminatory results. Now, solving this problem is not easy, and I don't have all the answers. But recognizing the problems is a good start.
Cody

Are you sure that the culture of crime/thuggery that Gardone speaks of in another thread might not be a causative factor?