CCW Holder Killed In Warrant Raid


PDA






mattf7184
August 5, 2005, 07:21 PM
http://www.nbc6.net/news/4813440/detail.html
http://cbs4.com/newslocal/topstoriesmia_story_217145104.html

These are the only two articles I found. Of course the friends and family are upset that he was probably defending his home and was killed. Sad situation overall.

Edit: one more http://www1.wsvn.com/news/articles/local/MIA4696/

If you enjoyed reading about "CCW Holder Killed In Warrant Raid" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
CentralTexas
August 5, 2005, 07:26 PM
1- Probably WAS a criminal as you know how they line up for concealed carry permits. :rolleyes:
2-At 6:30 am all he probably heard was the door breached and came out armed to see what the matter was
3- If it turns out to be the wong house I bet "He stiil appeared a threat"
4- Let's keep up with this one and see what shakes outCT

Car Knocker
August 5, 2005, 07:29 PM
Be interesting to get more detail on this event. Not enough to comment on at this point.

rhubarb
August 5, 2005, 08:22 PM
He had a conviction seven years ago for marijuana. He would have been sixteen at the time. Was the conviction for possession or dealing? In Texas, even juvenile records are taken into account when considering granting a concealed handgun license. I don't know about Florida.

Probably the knowledge that he had a permit and was therefore likely armed was what prompted sending a SWAT team.

The question is, and none of these articles say, did they find drugs? Evil assault weapons? Explosives? Illegal knives? The dearly departed was a known druggie and gun nut. End of story. Everybody go on about your business. Even a dangerous pothead should know better than to provoke a 'standoff' with the police and then point a gun at them. :rolleyes:

Joejojoba111
August 5, 2005, 08:36 PM
Feel sorry for the SWAT officers, being obligated to do other people's dirty work. Let the DEA get the blood on its hands enforcing it's own stupid laws.

Art Eatman
August 5, 2005, 08:47 PM
"...he was probably defending his home and was killed."

Okay. Now think, "Tactics". Assume for the moment it wasn't the cops. Do YOU go wandering out your front door with your pistol in your hand, not knowing what's out there? Assume for the moment that whatever got your attention was indeed some Bad Guy. Don't you first try to figure out what's going on, before exposing your Precious Bod to some forces of evil?

Nowhere on a Driver's License or on one's Carry Permit is there a little box marked "Smart".

Sure, it's sad. But you don't charge blindly into the unknown. Having a Carry Permit doesn't make you bullet-proof.

Art

ksnecktieman
August 5, 2005, 08:51 PM
I agree, insufficient facts. I would like to know if the officers were in uniform. I would like to know if they performed a "no knock entry".

DMF
August 5, 2005, 09:04 PM
Let the DEA get the blood on its hands enforcing it's own stupid laws. http://www.glocktalk.com/images/smilies/upeyes.gif It's been a while since I checked, but I'm pretty sure there are some state laws in FL which make a variety of narcotics illegal to posses, and sell.

HonorsDaddy
August 5, 2005, 09:25 PM
There is a distinct lack of detail in any of the stories and the only thing they could dredge up on the guy was a drug conviction when he was a teenager which obviously did not preclude him obtaining a CCW permit.

With that in mind, I suspect we're going to discover this was a serious screw-up on someone's part - and I dont mean the homeowner.

chopinbloc
August 5, 2005, 09:51 PM
With that in mind, I suspect we're going to discover this was a serious screw-up on someone's part

i doubt it. i don't know how it is in the rest of the country, but in maricopa county, az, when the sheriff's department screws the pooch (or incinerates one) it doesn't get much play on the local tv news or the major paper. people have to believe that their local law enforcement are shining white knights and the people they "visit" at odd hours are always scumbags.

how to incinerate someone's life and get away with it. (http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/issues/2004-08-05/news/feature.html) especially note the picture of the apc smashed into the car on the second page.

Sindawe
August 5, 2005, 09:53 PM
Rather interesting the verbage used by the various new articles. Two SWAT officers shot and killed a man in a house after he pulled a gun on them Friday, police said. & According to authorities, the Sunrise police SWAT team moved in on the house located on NW 21st Court looking for drugs, but instead encountered a gun-wielding suspect. Also noted in the third link is the comment that the neighbors in the normally quite neighborhood were stunned. This looks to me like if the dead fellow WAS involved in some illicit trade, he did not bother his neighbors with it.

Art Eatman
August 5, 2005, 10:02 PM
"This looks to me like if the dead fellow WAS involved in some illicit trade, he did not bother his neighbors with it."

Sindawe, some 23 years back I shared a house with three guys. I didn't know it at the time, but one of them "muled" U-Haul truckloads of grass to WashD.C.

He didn't bother to tell anybody how he was working his way through college...

:), Art

beerslurpy
August 5, 2005, 10:08 PM
I bet you either he wasnt a CCW holder or more likely the cops had the wrong address or bad information. Broward county isnt exactly stranger to this sort of behavior. It seems all the poor black areas in Florida are prone to this sort of door kicking activity.

There really isnt much you can do if a SWAT team kicks in your door in the wee hours, even if they have the wrong address. Another great reason why dynamic entries should be completely illegal.

Though having a rifle instead of a small pistol probably helps. Better to take a few down with you than to end up as some forgotten paperwork in a police station. If cops start dying as a result of their blatantly tyranical actions, maybe it will give them pause.

Nick1911
August 5, 2005, 10:14 PM
Okay. Now think, "Tactics". Assume for the moment it wasn't the cops. Do YOU go wandering out your front door with your pistol in your hand, not knowing what's out there?

If someone knocks on your door in the early morning, do you immediately draw on the door and drop back to cover getting ready for a fire fight? Me either. For all we know, the guy heard a knock on the door, casually grabbed a pistol off the nightstand and started heading toward the door to answer it. He gets about half way, and armed men kick it in.

Would you fire?

He probably didn't know it was the poice until after he had been shot. Looks like the war on drugs has claimed another life.

Coronach
August 5, 2005, 10:14 PM
Well, until more comes out, it is entirely impossible to say whether or not anyone screwed up, and who was in the wrong. Despite our tendency to focus on the screw-ups, the vast majority of SWAT-type situations are handled correctly. Of course, the vast majority of CCW permit holders are also pretty decent folks, too. So one or the other is going to cut against the grain of statistical wisdom.

Mike

Sindawe
August 5, 2005, 10:18 PM
Ya know, I think if the cops keep up with this kind of behavior, there may come a day that they will find themselves on the receiving of hostile fire from the "suspects" neighbors. Notably the activities in described in the Phoenix weekly paper.

Art, sounds to me like you roomie of years back was just following in the fine traditions set by the Kennedys. Namely smuggling.

Double Naught Spy
August 5, 2005, 10:25 PM
Right, most folks with CCW permits are good folks. Then again, some are just folks who have managed to fly under the radar.

In Texas, as noted above - pertaining to check juvenile records, the person likely would not have been granted a CHL because of the drug conviction, depending on how serious it was.

Joejojoba111
August 5, 2005, 10:44 PM
" It's been a while since I checked, but I'm pretty sure there are some state laws in FL which make a variety of narcotics illegal to posses, and sell."

Good point, but I don't care if it's gangbangers offing each other of CCWers maybe being in the wrong place at the wrong time, marijuana isn't a legitimate reason to die over, imo.

Also was this raid in the middle of the day, as the pictures indicate, or at night? And from a purely technical standpoint, if this was a no-knock warrant it's pretty clear that they're effective. Just supposing the dead guy was bad, he was awake, pretty well trained and armed, but didn't have time to get a shot off.

And if he was a normal guy and it was bandits busting into his domocile, perhaps it indicates that at first sign a better action is to fall back to a better defensive position. Hell maybe if you are is a better position there might be time to converse with the police too if they are the ones breaking in.

TallPine
August 5, 2005, 11:21 PM
"Anytime you go in with any type of a search warrant, there's always a potential for violence like this," Sunrise police Lt. Robert Voss said. "SWAT officers are trained, this is what they do, this is what they are trained for. And unfortunately it came to fruition today."
Yes, and that's because the :cuss: SWAT team is committing the violence - just by breaking into houses.

I just hope all you "oh my, drugs are baaaaaaad" people are happy :(

jefnvk
August 5, 2005, 11:31 PM
Well, until more comes out, it is entirely impossible to say whether or not anyone screwed up, and who was in the wrong.

Gonna have to go with Coronach on this one. For all we know, this went down correctly, the guy was the one they wanted, and he was going to try and take some cops with him.

We tend to side with CCW holders, because for the most part they are good people. But when one does something stupid, we will tell the anti's that you can't judge the group based on an individual. Sometimes, I think people will jump to basing an individual on the group's behavior.

Coronach
August 5, 2005, 11:39 PM
Yes, and that's because the SWAT team is committing the violence - just by breaking into houses.I'm presuming that the reporter is correct in stating that they had a warrant. This is a constitutionally-approved act of breaking into a house. We can dicker and dither about the exact tactics used, but make no mistake: that door is going to be opened, from one side or the other. The act of going into the house is completely proper (assuming the warrant was valid).

Mike

mattf7184
August 6, 2005, 12:11 AM
Okay, guess im one of the few that get to see the news down here so I'll fill in what i've seen on 11pm news.

He did have a legit CCW permit, correct house.
Not a bad neighborhood.
His friends say he was sleeping when this happen and was probably going to check the door.
It was not a no-knock apparently. Sunrise PIO said they knocked before entry.
I believe the charge for drugs he had was possesion.
Neighbors claim no suspiscious activity from house.
Police still are not saying if any illegal drugs or goods were found.
They had a legit search warrant.
Still hearing the guy didnt fire a shot at the police.

I have a feeling this will cool off in the media and we wont hear many more details unfortunately. Media is saying 2 SWAT members going in, doesnt sound like much of an element to me...maybe they meant they were not sure which of two SWAT guys fired the fatal shot(s).

Joejojoba111
August 6, 2005, 12:38 AM
With no-knock entries it really sounds like they're sending in the officers to kill-or-be-killed. Not fair for the officers or the occupants of the house.

It's a messed up policy and it's as close to murder as you can get, because it is so obviously likely that people will die.

beerslurpy
August 6, 2005, 12:39 AM
Joe, that is the best explanation for why dynamic entries are bad, especially in a state like Florida where nearly everybody is armed. Its bad for the cops and bad for the sucker inside his house sleeping.

Art Eatman
August 6, 2005, 01:44 AM
Joejojoba111, what does "no knock" have to do with this thread? Read the post above yours...

Art

Joejojoba111
August 6, 2005, 02:01 AM
If he was awake and armed and up and aware that police were coming through the door, then he probably would have gotten a shot off?

I guess I was assuming too much, now that you mention it.

It's just that was the scenario that stuck in my imagination, to account for why he had a pistol out but did not have time to fire it. 1-he didn't have it out because he had little time 2-he didn't have time to fire it because of the same reason. The way I figured it, if they were pounding on the door, he'd be crouching behind the couch with his pistol, or if he was planning on a gunfight he'd probably shoot through the door.

Then again stranger things have happened, he could very well have just walked out of the house and confronted them. But then again that would preclude them knocking, so that's out.

So he was in the house, definately.
He didn't fire, definately.
He was fired upon, definately.

I guess that's all that one can really know. For his handling of the pistol that could mean he was reaching for one, or putting one down, or about to pick one up that was lying on a table, or pointing it at the police.

I'll say that the fact he didn't fire is more likely to be a no-knock than a knock-knock, because having the pistol but not firing would be more indicative of surprise and not knowing the police were there. Whereby having a pistol and firing would indicate he did know the police were there.

mattf7184
August 6, 2005, 02:42 AM
It was not a no-knock apparently. Sunrise PIO said they knocked before entry.

They knocked...

Time of raid was 6:45am.

Car Knocker
August 6, 2005, 01:18 PM
Wonder exactly how much time expired between knocking and breaking the door down? Can the elapsed time be so short that it is essentially a "no-knock" entry? How much of the population is dressed and ready to answer the door within a few seconds at 6:45 am?

Dot_mdb
August 6, 2005, 01:27 PM
According to this article SWAT was used BECAUSE man had a concealed carry permit.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-cswat06aug06,0,3364596.story?coll=sfla-home-headlines


Sunrise SWAT team shoots man dead in search of drugs at home


Police aren't sure if victim fired shots; outraged friends say he wasn't violent.

By Brian Haas
Staff Writer
Posted August 6 2005


SUNRISE · The SWAT team assembled outside Anthony Diotaiuto's home in Sunrise Golf Village early Friday morning, expecting to find drugs and guns, authorities said.

Inside, Diotaiuto had been home for only a few hours after his night shift at one of the two jobs he kept to help pay for the home where he lived with his mother. He had a valid concealed weapons permit and kept a shotgun and a handgun for safety, friends said.

It was about 6:15 when the SWAT team smashed in Diotaiuto's door and shot him dead.

Officers were right to expect him to be armed, said Lt. Robert Voss, spokesman for the Sunrise Police Department.

"He had a gun and pointed it at our officers," Voss said Friday morning. "Our SWAT team fired."

Later Friday afternoon, he didn't sound as certain about whether Diotaiuto, 23, aimed his weapon.

"In all likelihood, that's what happened," Voss said. "I know there was a weapon found next to the body." He also said he did not know if detectives found any drugs or whether Diotaiuto fired any shots.

The shooting outraged and confused Diotaiuto's friends, who said he had no criminal record, was not violent and didn't sell drugs.

Diotaiuto was the third person killed in police-involved shootings in the past three days in South Florida. Earlier Friday, a federal drug agent in West Palm Beach shot and killed a man in an unrelated investigation. And on Tuesday, a Miami police officer killed a drug and alcohol recovery patient after the man pointed a gun at an officer, officials said.

Many of Diotaiuto's friends protested his death Friday afternoon outside his home. His mother, Marlene, collapsed when she heard of her son's death and was too upset to speak, friends said.

"They killed an innocent person," said Charlie Steeves, who said he was Diotaiuto's best friend. "He didn't sell drugs. He worked two jobs to buy that house."

Voss said information about drugs at Diotaiuto's home led to the search warrant. The search warrant was not available Friday and Voss did not know what drugs were suspected or what information the warrant contained.

The concealed weapons permit, was a "major factor" in the department's decision to involve the SWAT team, Voss said.

"The potential for violence was there," Voss said. SWAT officers must knock first and announce their presence, Voss said. If no one answers, the door comes down. "Unfortunately, this is one of those that's gone bad," he said.

Diotaiuto worked as a bartender at the Carolina Ale House in Weston and as a DJ on weekends. Steeves said Diotaiuto got the concealed weapons permit because he didn't feel safe coming home from work at 3 a.m. He thinks Diotaiuto panicked when he heard someone break in.

"What would you do if your door was knocked down and you were asleep?" Steeves asked.

Steeves buried his head in his stepfather's shoulder, overcome by grief as friends continued to gather on Friday afternoon.

"I know, I know," comforted the stepfather, Nils Zetterlund. "I would jump in front of a bus for this kid."

Friends said that Diotaiuto attended St. David Catholic Church every Sunday. Steeves said Diotaiuto was the godfather of his 1-year-old son, Thomas.

"This kid is nothing like they're portraying," said Annette Zetterlund, Steeves' mother. "This kid is a gem."

Residents say Diotaiuto's neighborhood was an unlikely target for drug activity.

"It's a quiet neighborhood, but that house has always been trouble," said Susan Mandeville, who wondered about the visitors at Diotaiuto's home at odd hours.

Still, she conceded, "I never thought that they were doing drugs."

The two SWAT officers, whom Voss declined to name, will be placed on routine paid leave while the department and the Broward County State Attorney's Office investigate the shooting.

The Real Hawkeye
August 6, 2005, 01:42 PM
Joejojoba111, what does "no knock" have to do with this thread? Read the post above yours...There are knocks and then there are knocks. From what I hear, most knock warrants are served with only a soft knock, which is hardly different in effect from a no knock. If the knock is not responded to (not heard, or on toilet), the door is smashed within seconds, and then its on. There is really little practical difference between knock and no knock. The Founders didn't intend for armed goons to be authorized by a warrant to smash in someone's door at five in the morning and shoot them if they respond the way any normal home owner would. You know where someone is, you can (in the most extreme cases) just have all escape routes covered, and announce by phone or loud speaker that you have a warrant, and that he is to come to the door with his hands in the air. This gives the suspect time to verify whether it's really the police out there or a very sophisticated armed robbery. Isn't it obvious that this is better than smashing a door in with weapons drawn? That seems designed to get someone killed.

QuickDraw
August 6, 2005, 01:44 PM
Seeing as most if not all warrants are served between
5 and 7 AM,it would be a good idea to be up,dressed,
and ready for battle at 4!

QuickDraw

Mixlesplick
August 6, 2005, 02:16 PM
The concealed weapons permit, was a "major factor" in the department's decision to involve the SWAT team, Voss said.

It looks like we might need reinforced die hard steel doors if we have a carry permit and have company over at "odd hours." Obviously though, I don't know if this guy is guilty or not. Although, if they found drugs it probably would have been in the newspaper articles to help justify the killing.

CCW permit. The new gun registration. Apply now. My pistols are registered anyway because I live in Michigan. :(

DMF
August 6, 2005, 02:20 PM
Well for Car Knocker and Hawkeye, and anyone that might want to believe Hawkeye's BS about what he "hears" :rolleyes: , here is the reality of knock announce warrants: If it's a knock and announce, the officers will firmly knock and announce loudly and clearly who they are. No soft knocking, no knocking quietly and whispering, it's a loud and clear knock and announce. We don't want evidence suppressed later, and we don't want to sued or prosecuted, for doing it improperly. After the knock and announce, officers are required to wait a "reasonable length of time before forcing entry."

The courts have refused to set a specific time as to what is reasonable. The specific circumstances dictate what is or isn't reasonable. Sometimes a few seconds is reasonable, sometimes a few minutes is reasonable, the totality of the circumstances dictate what that will be.

AF_INT1N0
August 6, 2005, 02:21 PM
Have CCW and the Cops will kill you... :eek: Lesson learned :( :banghead:

DMF
August 6, 2005, 02:33 PM
AFINT1N0, your comment is disingenuous. If the media reports are correct, which is a big assumption I know, but if they are, he was shot because he presented a credible threat of serious bodily injury of death. Knowledge of firearms in the house may have affected the tactics used to serve the warrant, but CCW or not, the decision to use deadly force is based on the threat presented. From the accounts provided from the media it seems this guy either had the gun out, or was acting in such a manner that it looked like he was trying to get the gun out.

TallPine
August 6, 2005, 02:54 PM
From the accounts provided from the media it seems this guy either had the gun out, or was acting in such a manner that it looked like he was trying to get the gun out.
Which is exactly what 90% of us would have been doing, at least until we identified the "visitors" as LEO.

Don't know about you all, but I have a 2 story house and sleep upstairs. There is no way that I could wake up and get dressed and answer a knock on the door at 6am within a "reasonable length of time before forcing entry."

(which is probably what... 15 or 20 seconds.....?)

After reading the article posted by Dot_mdb, there is not much more I can say appropriate to this forum....

Group9
August 6, 2005, 02:58 PM
For all the keyboard commandos who say they would pull a gun on a SWAT team because they weren't sure they really were the police, here is your real life ending.

Sindawe
August 6, 2005, 03:20 PM
For all the keyboard commandos who say they would pull a gun on a SWAT team because they weren't sure they really were the police, here is your real life ending. So if someone bursts into your home in the early dawn hours of the day, and even looks like they might be a LEO, you peasants had better genuflect immediately. :mad:

Sounds to me like the best course of action for all citizens is to get steel doors and frames that will take some time to batter open. That way, one has some time to verify that the door knockers actually ARE cops, and that they have a valid warrant. That way, if you have nothing illegal, all you'll get charged with is a obstruction instead of being shot dead.

Car Knocker
August 6, 2005, 03:32 PM
DMF,

It would seem, according to your statement, that a knock and announce can in fact be quite similar to a no-knock entry, especially if one happens to be asleep at the time and doesn't get to the door in a few seconds. Thanks for confirming that!

Since I live in an older, well-built house, I probably wouldn't hear someone shouting out front and would only hear the knock or bell ring. I tend to go to the door armed when someone is knocking, especially at odd hours, and would no doubt meet the police head-on in the living room and would probably meet the same fate as Diotaiuto, since I do have a CCW and the police would be predosposed to meet an armed homeowner.

I would hope that would never occur but the police do in fact raid the wrong homes on occaision.

stevelyn
August 6, 2005, 03:33 PM
From the accounts provided from the media it seems the guy either had the gun out, or acted in such a manner that it looked like he was trying to get the gun out.

Of course he was. Wasn't he? But we'll never know for sure since the only person besides the SWAT ninjas that knows the other side of the story just happens to be dead now. :fire: :banghead:

All Hail another great victory in the rightous War on (some) Drugs.......again. :cuss: :rolleyes:

The Real Hawkeye
August 6, 2005, 03:33 PM
Yes, it appears that having a CCW license makes you more likely to be murdered by cops. It has become routine to run a license plate during a pull over to see if the driver has a CCW license. If he does, his treatment is usually made considerably "rougher." If there was any sense at all to police behavior, however, the cop should breath a sigh of relief when he sees that this guy has a CCW license, because, unlike the general public, he knows for a fact that this guy is very likely an upstanding non-criminal type who respects the law. Instead, they get approached with hand on weapon (if it's not drawn) and a demand to show the hands and step out. After that the search and cuff, followed by false imprisonment in the back seat of a squad car. Is that equal treatment under the law?

It only makes sense that warrant service is also going to treat us as the bad guys who need killing by a SWAT team. :uhoh:

DMF
August 6, 2005, 03:40 PM
Geez Hawkeye, your hatred of cops seems to inspire creative writing. Got any proof having a CCW license results in "rougher" treatment by cops during a traffic stop, or that it routinely results in being cuffed, searched and placed in back of cruiser? . . . or this just more of what you "hear?" :rolleyes:

DMF
August 6, 2005, 03:48 PM
It would seem, according to your statement, that a knock and announce can in fact be quite similar to a no-knock entry, especially if one happens to be asleep at the time and doesn't get to the door in a few seconds. Thanks for confirming that! Well people being deliberately obtuse in these debates seems to be epidemic. Nothing I said would suggest a knock and announce is any way similar to a no-knock warrant. You seemed to have missed the fact that I said it could be said the circumstances affect what is reasonable.

As I said in an earlier debate, let's look at a hypothetical:

If a cop is tail end charlie as they stack on the door, and he peeks through a gap in the curtains as lead is knocking and announcing. If he sees an occupant go to closet pull out a shotgun and open a box of shells, they are most likely NOT going to wait one second more, because if they wait the danger of violence, to everyone including the occupant INCREASES. Different circumstances, will necessitate different actions. The totality of the circumstances will dictate what is reasonable.

The Real Hawkeye
August 6, 2005, 03:49 PM
Geez Hawkeye, your hatred of cops seems to inspire creative writing. Got any proof having a CCW license results in "rougher" treatment by cops during a traffic stop, or that it routinely results in being cuffed, searched and placed in back of cruiser? . . . or this just more of what you "hear?"Since I am not omniscient, most of what I believe to be facts are what I hear to be facts.

You are some kind of law enforcement agent or other, so you tell me if it's true or not in your experience. I will give the weight to your assertion that it deserves.

The Real Hawkeye
August 6, 2005, 03:51 PM
Geez Hawkeye, your hatred of cops seems to inspire creative writing.By the way, DMF, I don't hate cops. I hate abuses of authority in the service of a growing police state. That's another way of saying that I love liberty under law.

Flyboy
August 6, 2005, 04:02 PM
Yes, it appears that having a CCW license makes you more likely to be murdered by cops. It has become routine to run a license plate during a pull over to see if the driver has a CCW license. If he does, his treatment is usually made considerably "rougher." If there was any sense at all to police behavior, however, the cop should breath a sigh of relief when he sees that this guy has a CCW license, because, unlike the general public, he knows for a fact that this guy is very likely an upstanding non-criminal type who respects the law. Instead, they get approached with hand on weapon (if it's not drawn) and a demand to show the hands and step out. After that the search and cuff, followed by false imprisonment in the back seat of a squad car.
The last time I was pulled over (and the only time since I got my permit), I informed the officer I was carrying, and visibly relaxed. Asked me to step out, relieved me of my 1911 (I've since learned that he's not supposed to do that in Oklahoma, but he was polite about it), took me back to the car, had me sit in the front with him, and didn't cuff or otherwise restrained me. We talked guns (.45 v. .40) until the wants and warrants check came back. I was clean, he sent me on my way. Very polite about it, very friendly, and even told me he thought carrying was a "good idea, especially given all the traveling [I] do" (I was doing medical equipment repair throughout the state). I thought about writing his department a letter asking them to review their training procedures after I learned he can't disarm me (it's a recent change), but decided against it because he was so friendly, and I didn't want to get him busted.

Oh, and he never did ask for registration or insurance, and I had out-of-state plates and an in-state driver's license.

Group9
August 6, 2005, 04:22 PM
It's also amazing the number of CCW holders who say they would kill someone who pulled a gun on them, but are appalled that the police would do the same thing.

Try and put your hate for authority aside for a moment, and consider the hypocracy of that position.

Otherguy Overby
August 6, 2005, 04:33 PM
I do not have ID from either of my states of residence.

I've a DL from a third state and a CCW from still another.

There's no duty to inform an LEO of my weapons status in either of the states of residence.

My land line phones are listed under a long dead cat's name.

There's no way to tie me to guns, CCW, a coffee can or anything else.

Though prolly not really legal, it sure seems like a good idea right now.

Nightfall
August 6, 2005, 04:45 PM
It's also amazing the number of CCW holders who say they would kill someone who pulled a gun on them, but are appalled that the police would do the same thing.

Try and put your hate for authority aside for a moment, and consider the hypocracy of that position.It's also amazing the logic disconnect it takes not to see the hypocrisy of that position. The CCWer defending his life didn't just break into somebody's home at night.

Drug dealer or not, this incident sure ain't making me love the WoD more.

ksnecktieman
August 6, 2005, 05:22 PM
I will call foul on this one. So, he may or may not have and be dealing drugs. He is working two jobs. In public. Why would swat go to his house when they could get a warrant to arrest him, and another to search his house, and then apprehend him at work when he is unarmed? And enter his house with keys, knowing he was not there.

We can not call good or bad shoot on this one because of lack of facts. I can call bad tactics by swat, for making the situation happen.

Jeff White
August 6, 2005, 05:33 PM
The Real Hawkeye said;
There are knocks and then there are knocks. From what I hear, most knock warrants are served with only a soft knock, which is hardly different in effect from a no knock. If the knock is not responded to (not heard, or on toilet), the door is smashed within seconds, and then its on. There is really little practical difference between knock and no knock.

And you know this because you've been number one man on how many entries? Why don't you post your department affiiation, or if you aren't comfortable posting it on an open forum, PM me with your experience....

Yes, it appears that having a CCW license makes you more likely to be murdered by cops. It has become routine to run a license plate during a pull over to see if the driver has a CCW license.

Really? What police academy teaches that? There are many reasons a license plate is run, but the first and formost is for officer safety. All states don't put CCW information into their files, but you will get wants, warrants and BOLOs. It also lets dispatch know what vehicle you are out with in case you are ambushed; so they have a place to start the investigation into your murder....

If he does, his treatment is usually made considerably "rougher." If there was any sense at all to police behavior, however, the cop should breath a sigh of relief when he sees that this guy has a CCW license, because, unlike the general public, he knows for a fact that this guy is very likely an upstanding non-criminal type who respects the law.

Possession of a CCW is no more a guarantee that the person is an upstanding, reasonable citizen then is possession of a badge and police credentials or the wearing of a clerical collar. Everyone you encounter has the potential to hurt or kill you. You can't go by appearances alone.

Instead, they get approached with hand on weapon (if it's not drawn) and a demand to show the hands and step out. After that the search and cuff, followed by false imprisonment in the back seat of a squad car. Is that equal treatment under the law?


If this has happened to you, it was most likely your attitude and demeanor that made the the officer take extra precautions. There is no CCW here in Illinois. I wish there was but that's for another thread. Even with no CCW I encounter a lot of legally armed people in the course of my work. When I stop someone that has a couple firearms in his truck because he's on the way to or from a shooting event, I always ask them to step out of the vehicle and wait in my car while I write the citation etc. I work alone and backup may be 20 minutes away. I'm not gifted enough to write a citation or warning and watch the person in the other vehicle close enough to make sure they aren't uncasing that weapon because they have just committed a crime and they fear I am about to find out or they just plain don't want a traffic citation.

Jeff

TheEgg
August 6, 2005, 06:23 PM
The facts are definitely not in on this one yet.

But I am very disturbed by the lack of any kind of "real" information coming from the cops on this one. They sure sound soft and uncertain of their facts.

In my experience, when the cops sound like this, something is not right.

The guy who said "The concealed weapons permit, was a "major factor" in the department's decision to involve the SWAT team, Voss said." needs an emergency medical response at once, to remove the foot embedded deeply in his mouth. :scrutiny:

Baba Louie
August 6, 2005, 06:28 PM
Why wait for real info... Let's speculate until the cows come home and worry about facts later, right?

Either he dealt drugs or not.

Either he had drugs at his home or not.

He felt a need for CCW due to late night working hours. He passed whatever background check FLA runs when they issue them so nothing currently indicates illicit activity it would appear.

Someone authorized a warrant due to someone else's testimony.

Warrant was served knowing occupant had CCW (Weapons in house).

SWAT just doing their job.

Homeowner did what I'd do. Answer early morning knock armed. I'm sure that SWAT team did what the local SWAT team would do.

There have been cases of BG's knocking on doors here in LV wearing uniforms and identifying themselves as LE.

I expect to soon read that some type of drugs will be found in his home and will match whatever was written in the warrant. I'd expect cries of FOUL and 'planted evidence'.

This will not stop until enough politicians have had their homes raided by LE and are shot dead for the remainder to figure out that the WOD is... awkward and doesn't always result in Columbian Drug Cartel members hanging their heads in shame, handcuffed and on the evening news.

Prohibition.

Ya gotta love it when we forget our history lessons. [Article XVIII and XXI, US Constitution]

http://www.constitution.org/afterte_.htm

sigh

Then again, he could have really been dealing drugs whilst working late night DJ at Night Clubs and got someone angry enough to squeal... should we all wait and see? NAHH!
http://www.clubdrugs.org/

...or was acting in such a manner that it looked like he was trying to get the gun out. Cell phones look like guns... wallets look like guns... combs look like guns... moving hands looks like going for a gun... feared for my life...
Whatever. Result is the same. Dead Meat Fallen. Chalked outline. One less nefarious scum, er, taxpaying citizen to deal with. More Frikkin paperwork.

Sometimes a bad guy gets what he deserves. Sometimes... not.

Ya gotta die someday. Might as well be today. Nothing you can do about it then. Ask Diallo or Dioaluto

Like my Daddy always tol' me, "Little Baba Louie, ride wit' the law, not ag'in it. It don't hurt too much"

And if the LE officers shoot me for answering my front door knock at 06:00 armed... It probably won't hurt for too long, and that's nice... I guess. I'm sure I've broken some laws somewhere, sometime. (Think of the arsenal they'll show on TV... some fun youse guys'll have then, huh?)

I apologize to all for allowing my cynical streak to show. I tend to be a Police advocate since I don't want to have to deal with criminal scum on my own unless need dictates otherwise. Terror comes in many shapes and forms. When innocent people fear their supposed protectors (or gov't brute squads)... that's just the way it is... I guess

Jim March
August 6, 2005, 06:31 PM
At least in terms of traffic stops, the real-life reports I've seen say that most cops do understand that permitholders aren't a problem.

The exceptions seem to be either in states that have recently converted to shall-issue OR states where issuance isn't common such as NY, California, etc.

---------------

What we've got in this case seldom comes up because raids against CCW holders aren't at all common. It's pretty damned disturbing though. I'd like to see where the warrant came from and whether or not they had any data other than a "confidential informant" or "snitch they turned".

Edit: somehow I had gotten the idea this was a Mass. case vs. FL.

The Real Hawkeye
August 6, 2005, 06:31 PM
It's also amazing the number of CCW holders who say they would kill someone who pulled a gun on them, but are appalled that the police would do the same thing.

Try and put your hate for authority aside for a moment, and consider the hypocracy of that position.Not hypocracy. Having someone pull a gun on you when you are minding your own business is a million miles away from pulling your gun on someone for breaking into your home in the middle of the night.

Art Eatman
August 6, 2005, 06:33 PM
A buddy of mine who's a CHL holder, and I, have had a few routine traffic stops. Minor; speeding.

We've mostly had minor conversations with the LEOs, concerning traffic in general, guns, and generic "social stuff". Never a hint of worry about us having pistols on us or with us. No hassle whatsoever.

Following the "what if?" stuff on this thread, I come once again to tactics. Most of it has to do with forced entry by bad guys, since I doubt the cops would raid me. Doesn't matter: I'm NOT gonna rush out to see what's going on! Armed or unarmed, it seems to me that leaping out in front of some hostile person could get me shot or stabbed or clubbed.

Anybody--LEO or Bad Guy--who's entering via breaking down a door is gonna be on adrenalin rush.

I don't have kids to worry about, but I'm gonna get BossLady down behind the bed, and I'll most likely be right alongside. A mattress is a good bullet-stopper, given the angles likely to be involved.

If it's cops, they'll be doing some sort of announcing thing. I can yell back with appropriate responses. If it stays quiet, I can assume "Bad Guy!" and then work out the next response.

Leaping out from cover or concealment, gun in hand, just doesn't strike me as the epitome of brilliance.

Art

carebear
August 6, 2005, 06:33 PM
Jeff,

Don't get sidetracked by the "pulled over with CCW" issue. I and most CCW-holders I know have not found that to be the case.

The issue is that these kind of outcomes are the direct and foreseeable result of pulling military tactics into civilian law enforcement.

The two operate at contradictory principals. in the military you attack before dawn with overwhelming force to catch the enemy at their worst so you can destroy them at minimal risk to yourself.

The consequences to the target are irrelevent, they are hostile and so death, if not desired, is certainly not worried about.

In civilian law enforcement, warrant or not, that target is an innocent in the eyes of the law. To create a situation by choosing tactics that explicitly do not leave room for mistakes, that in fact provoke a predictable and morally/legally justifiable violent response, is a travesty.

Numerous commentators, LEO and non-, have presented alternatives to "no-knock" and "short" knock warrant service at peoples homes that would reduce the chances of mistaken identities and deaths on either side.

The original excuse for "no-knocks" was simply to preserve evidence, it has since been expanded to "officer safety". Yet it is still the innocent who pay the price and get, perhaps, an apology if things go wrong.

Apologys don't bring back the innocent dead, nor do they reinstill feelings of security ion a violated home or loss of trust in law enforcement yused as a hammer.

It is past time to put the onus back where it belongs, on law enforcement, to come up with creative ways of doing their jobs that minimize risk for all involved and don't ask sleepy citizens to accept all the risk for deciding in a sleepy instant whether that knock at their door is truly the police or home invaders claiming the same.

Better that some drugs get flushed or the cops have to stake out for a couple days to pick the offender off alone away from reinforcements or additional weapons, better that they have to get separate warrants for person and home, than for innocents (even "guilty" innocents) to suffer preemptory capital punishment.

The Real Hawkeye
August 6, 2005, 06:40 PM
Even with no CCW I encounter a lot of legally armed people in the course of my work. When I stop someone that has a couple firearms in his truck because he's on the way to or from a shooting event, I always ask them to step out of the vehicle and wait in my car while I write the citation etc. I work alone and backup may be 20 minutes away. I'm not gifted enough to write a citation or warning and watch the person in the other vehicle close enough to make sure they aren't uncasing that weapon because they have just committed a crime and they fear I am about to find out or they just plain don't want a traffic citation.If seeing a weapon in a hunter's vehicle, (in compliance with the law regarding transport) is justification for what you do, than you ought to do that to everyone you give a ticket to, because the guy who's going to shoot a cop for a pull over is not going to carry a hunting rifle in compliance with the law. He's going to pack a piece in his waist band under his shirt or jacket, where you can't see it.

beerslurpy
August 6, 2005, 06:41 PM
It's also amazing the number of CCW holders who say they would kill someone who pulled a gun on them, but are appalled that the police would do the same thing.

Except I'm not breaking into the policeman's home. He is breaking into mine. If I kicked in someone's door in FL, I would expect to be shot. Because that is how people react to having their homes invaded. It is reasonable to expect that home invaders would yell out anything that will prevent me from firing back like "Freeze, police!"

Any time we create sitautions in which people are not allowed to defend their homes against intrusion (when it is the police for example), we create an avenue for criminals successfully perpetrate crimes by using that exception.

The solution here is to not create that exception. Police should knock politely and wait outside until someone comes to the door. If they think someone is going to try and escape out the back (say an arrest warrant), then have extra officers waiting out back until you can gain entrance to the interior for a search.

About the main argument for dynamic entries- If you think they are going to flush contraband down the toilet, who cares? The contraband is gone isnt it? If you cant retreive it for use as evidence, how will they be able to retreive it for sale? Isnt getting rid of the contraband more important than convicting someone of posessing it?

carebear
August 6, 2005, 06:43 PM
Art,

I'm far from an expert but I've done some actual CQB training and I assure you, when you go in yelling it is solely to dominate the situation not engage in a debate. There is no listening going on.

They'll hit the front door and start clearing the house room by room, yelling Police search Warrant (if you're lucky). They are not going to stop at a closed bedroom door and have a conversation about who is who. They will be through that door, probably behind a flashbang, and clear it as well. If you are lucky they MAY give you time to drop the gun, but they are not going to be pulling out picture credentials till both you and BossLady are down (with or without holes) and cuffed. They may not even show you credentials then.

Which is the problem, once that raid starts down the slip it will be completed as planned, regardless of little factors like obviously being the wrong house or the wrong people. Officer safety and liability demands it.

The Founders worried about searches by armed troops of the government. Due to the recent drug war and terrorism changes in law enforcement tactics of the past 3 decades or so we have the civilian LEO equivilent back again.

And it is hurting all of us, LEO or not. :banghead:

beerslurpy
August 6, 2005, 06:47 PM
I'm far from an expert but I've done some actual CQB training and I assure you, when you go in yelling it is solely to dominate the situation not engage in a debate. There is no listening going on.

And the more people who know this will open fire without hesitation.

The only way it will stop is if lots of cops start dying and lots of other cops start demanding that their superiors not make them carry out these raids.

Car Knocker
August 6, 2005, 06:47 PM
DMF,

Well people being deliberately obtuse in these debates seems to be epidemic.

Yes, I agree wholeheartedly!

Please note that I said "can be in fact quite similar". Not that they always are, but that they can be. If the cops feel that a knock and announce with the door being broken down 2 or 3 seconds later is reasonable, then that is close enough to a no-knock, in practical terms, that the effect is the same. There is not a sufficient time to respond to the knock for an average person if they are not sitting next to the door, let alone being in another room or asleep or in the bathroom, etc.

If people aren't allowed a reasonable amount of time to respond at the odd hours that many of these raids are conducted then they might as well be no-knock entries since there isn't a chance of opening the door before it gets kicked in!

Art Eatman
August 6, 2005, 06:49 PM
carebear, I'm happy to stipulate to your conditions. Even so, my notion of hanging back is still better than charging out into the middle of a mess, gun in hand.

Art

Hawkmoon
August 6, 2005, 06:53 PM
If the knock is not responded to (not heard, or on toilet), the door is smashed within seconds, and then its on. There is really little practical difference between knock and no knock. The Founders didn't intend for armed goons to be authorized by a warrant to smash in someone's door at five in the morning and shoot them if they respond the way any normal home owner would. You know where someone is, you can (in the most extreme cases) just have all escape routes covered, and announce by phone or loud speaker that you have a warrant, and that he is to come to the door with his hands in the air. This gives the suspect time to verify whether it's really the police out there or a very sophisticated armed robbery. Isn't it obvious that this is better than smashing a door in with weapons drawn? That seems designed to get someone killed.
I agree completely. Whatever happened to the concept of knocking on the door, if nobody answers we just go away and come back a few hours later?

DMF, it's worse than disingenuous of you to defend these raids. And "raids" is what they are, not "warrant services." This case is a poster child for everything that's wrong with the system. The guy works two jobs, he got home only a few hours before, he probably was sound asleep. As others have pointed out, if you're tired and a heavy sleeper, how likely is it that you'll wake up when someone knocks on your door, figure out what's going on, find your slippers, and make it to the front door before the SWAT team has decided that "circumstances dictated" enough time had elapsed and the decision was made to breach the door? Yes, I am aware that the courts have not set A specific time as being "reasonable," but they have allowed that a "reasonable" time may be measured in seconds, not minutes.

Speaking only for myself, no matter who is knocking on the door or what time, it's going to take me more than a minute to hear the knock and get to the door even if I'm awake. If the fan or the a/c is running, or the television is on in the bedroom -- I'm not going to hear the knock. Likewise if I'm asleep.

So if I hear the door being smashed in, isn't it reasonable for me to reach for something with which to defend myself against unknown intruders/potential assailants?

Give me a break. This kind of "warrant service" is just plain wrong. And it's one more reason why gun registries (regardless of whatever euphemism the jurisdiction uses to cover up the fact they have a gun registry) should be done away with. Sorry. I don't like drugs and I don't like people who deal drugs, but the simple fact is that the drug dealing itself is a non-violent crime, and conducting drug raids using tactics that simply beg for violent reaction is SO stupid that it goes beyond outrageous.

Why not pick up the phone and ask the resident to please come downstairs and open the door?

Joejojoba111
August 6, 2005, 06:59 PM
"About the main argument for dynamic entries- If you think they are going to flush contraband down the toilet, who cares? The contraband is gone isnt it? If you cant retreive it for use as evidence, how will they be able to retreive it for sale? Isnt getting rid of the contraband more important than convicting someone of posessing it?"

That's untrue. If that is the given reason for dynamic entries (I just thought they did them because they were cool) then there should be no no-knocks.

Maybe it's not Well known, but I happen to know that when a warrant is being served one taps the plumbing coming out of the house and awaits 'The Flush'. Maybe it's not in movies, but you can imagine it's not a glamorous job. But it is a job, and thus it counters that particular argument for dynamic entry.

And we have all seen these debates before, and the answer is always the same. Get a dog. If you live in the city then get a smaller city dog. Small dog might even live longer than a big one if it's harder to target.

spartacus2002
August 6, 2005, 07:04 PM
Possession of a CCW is no more a guarantee that the person is an upstanding, reasonable citizen then is possession of a badge and police credentials or the wearing of a clerical collar.

Except that the possessor of a CCW permit, here in my home state of Virginia, has been fingerprinted, has had to demonstrate proof of training, has had a background check, and has willingly submitted to all this.

How many criminals do you know of who go thru all that just to carry legally? Hint: Not very many.

kbr80
August 6, 2005, 07:06 PM
We will never know both sides of the story on this incident, since one side is DEAD. We will have to put trust and faith in the LEO's that investigate this to tell the truth.

The Real Hawkeye
August 6, 2005, 07:09 PM
So if I hear the door being smashed in, isn't it reasonable for me to reach for something with which to defend myself against unknown intruders/potential assailants?If the logic of our position is so clear to us, don't you suspect that it is clear to them also? But the purpose of these tactics is not really so much to do a better job at law enforcement. It's purpose is to generate a general sense of fear, among the populous, of armed government agents. This is how tyrannies are established. First you have to make everyone terrified that they might get a visit in the middle of the night, that this visit is designed to put them in a situation where they are going to be murdered, and that the police will get a free ride afterwards, claiming, with the support of the courts, that they had a right to do it. This way, you and I will make sure to hand over half our income to the government more readily, and might even throw in a little extra, just to be on the safe side. :uhoh:

carebear
August 6, 2005, 07:11 PM
Art,

I'm going out because I maybe heard a knock. The door smashing in is my first warning I should hide. :rolleyes:

Why not pick up the phone and ask the resident to please come downstairs and open the door?

...from behind cover even, say a marked police car. That way, they can look out the window and be a little more confident they are looking at real police.

If they open fire then you can reasonably assume they are, in fact, bad guys or insane. And then it's shooting time.

If they don't come out, you can wait them out, I believe doctrine states if you can make it past a few hours the situation will resolve itself peaceably.

I was unaware of a sewer tap (can't figure how'd they'd do it, through the cleanout?) but, as was said, that kinda removes much of the "flushing away evidence" issue. In any event, the dope is off the street.

All these just take a little more time, effort and manpower and perhaps slightly increase the risk of charges not sticking. So what? Perhaps we (the community) would use those kind of tactics less if we had to justify the cost a little more.

I sincerely doubt it would really change our overall societal safety.

Note, there would, of course, still be reasonable exceptions for, say, convicted violent felons or escapees who are known to have resisted police with firearms before. The minimal number of these should allow for double and triple checking of addresses and positive target ID.

It's the reasonable impression that tool #1 in the box nowadays seems to be "raid" with only minimal or painfully stretched justification that is the problem.

Otherguy Overby
August 6, 2005, 07:24 PM
Maybe it's not Well known, but I happen to know that when a warrant is being served one taps the plumbing coming out of the house and awaits 'The Flush'. Maybe it's not in movies, but you can imagine it's not a glamorous job. But it is a job, and thus it counters that particular argument for dynamic entry.

Hey, I'm on septic. Come out and try this and i might just shoot you, run you through the DR Chipper Shredder (on sale via late night TV) or whatever.

You are not my friend.

You were warned about illegal trespassing, weren't you?

You won't be going home to family.

carebear
August 6, 2005, 07:30 PM
Going abroad from topic....

With a septic they just need the warrant for AFTER the raid. The evidence is in the tank, they can access it at leisure after the cuffs go on.

That's how I'D do it.

Otherguy Overby
August 6, 2005, 07:42 PM
With a septic they just need the warrant for AFTER the raid. The evidence is in the tank, they can access it at leisure after the cuffs go on.

Riddle me this, grasshopper, does it really matter when the evidence is planted?

In my case, I ABSOLUTELY know there's nothing illegal.

IOW, if they come out to my country property, all rules are off. They will find an "arsenal" they will find "excessive" amounts of ammuntiion after I'm gone. What does NOT matter is that I never had any BAD intent. I'm a fat old white guy with a beard... I've lived a really good life and also know how to live on the road anonymously.

DMF
August 6, 2005, 08:36 PM
If seeing a weapon in a hunter's vehicle, (in compliance with the law regarding transport) is justification for what you do, than you ought to do that to everyone you give a ticket to, because the guy who's going to shoot a cop for a pull over is not going to carry a hunting rifle in compliance with the law. He's going to pack a piece in his waist band under his shirt or jacket, where you can't see it.Really? Always? 100% of the time? You know that for sure? I guess you've never "heard" of Deputy Kyle Dinkheller. The deputy was killed by someone who was legally transporting a rifle in his truck. After the traffic stop Deputy Dinkheller's killer loaded the rifle and attecked Dinkheller, killing him. How do we know? It was all on the cruiser cam tape.

With all the "facts" you "hear" how come you don't know about incidents like that? http://www.glocktalk.com/images/smilies/upeyes.gif

AF_INT1N0
August 6, 2005, 08:42 PM
DMF,

1. If the guy has a CCW he's probably not a bad guy... And he's armed. Raiding a house with armed occupants is likely to get someone hurt or, in this case killed. Have him come out.. Also you could shoot him in the yard if presents a threat (you don't have clean the surf guts that way and you save the tax money for another couple of MP-5s)..

2. Raids that involve forcefully entering someones home should be dangerous enough to police that they don't decide to knock down your door for 1oz of marijuana (sp?) Marijuana possession is a Misdemeaner not a capitol crime.

3. If you blow down someones door at 0500 and they pull a gun on you it is because you are a threat, he was likely dreaming pink fuzzy bunnies and icecream sandwiches before you came along.

Lastly please don't take any of this to be anti-police, it's not meant to be.
But too many people die for too many stupid reasons already without state funded ninjas storming your house before your first cup o Joe.

DMF
August 6, 2005, 08:48 PM
Please note that I said "can be in fact quite similar".I saw that, but it was not the driving force behind my comment. This portion was: . . . especially if one happens to be asleep at the time and doesn't get to the door in a few seconds. Which erroneously assumes that merely failing to answer the door in a few seconds is justification to force entry. I was even kind enough to provide a hypothetical which would show a situation in which seconds might be justified.

DMF
August 6, 2005, 08:52 PM
If the guy has a CCW he's probably not a bad guy... Well sorry, but the police had already established that he probably WAS a bad guy, and the magistrate agreed. Which is how the warrant process works. It's called PROBABLE cause, as there was PROBABLY evidence of a crime in the residence.

Joejojoba111
August 6, 2005, 09:05 PM
I thought the judge was just saying it was reasonable to make a reasonable search for evidence which might reasonably be suspected to possibly exist in the house.

But you learn a new thing every day, search warrant means you're a bad guy and you probably have evidence of your crimes in your house.

Probably versus reasonable maybe; assumption of guilt versus no assumptions:

Good to know, but this is further from my original undersanding than I am willing to accept on information from an internet scholar.

No offence to you or scholars persons or the internet, simply stating that I don't quite believe you, and mean no offence by it.

DMF
August 6, 2005, 09:11 PM
Joejojoba111, if there is probable to cause to beleive there are drugs in a residence, and the cops search the residence and actually find drugs in the house, what do you think is likely to happen to the person who lives there? . . . Well there was PC the drugs were there, and in MOST circumstances finding that evidence of the crime during the search helps establish PC that the person who lives there committed the crime. So the person gets arrested because they PROBABLY committed the crime in question. Again, as I said earlier being deliberately obtuse seems to be epidemic today.

Car Knocker
August 6, 2005, 09:26 PM
:banghead:

fastbolt
August 6, 2005, 09:32 PM
The media only knows what they've been given in press releases and statements, or what they've "developed" on their own ...

It's unwise to make judgments based upon media information.

Okay. Now think, "Tactics".
Nowhere on a Driver's License or on one's Carry Permit is there a little box marked "Smart".

Without attempting to make any comments on the specific situation which is the subject of this thread, I think the above statements by Art Eatman do merit some attention and consideration. Overall, very few of life's problems are "gun problems", in the respect that their solutions require the use of a gun ... and even those that may become 'gun problems' still require intelligence, common sense and good judgment ... not to mention behaving in accordance to the established and accepted laws of our society.

I suspect that it's that intelligence, common sense and good judgment part that may cause a lot of folks some occasional grief ...

Cacique500
August 6, 2005, 09:40 PM
Officers were right to expect him to be armed, said Lt. Robert Voss, spokesman for the Sunrise Police Department.

"He had a gun and pointed it at our officers," Voss said Friday morning. "Our SWAT team fired."

Later Friday afternoon, he didn't sound as certain about whether Diotaiuto, 23, aimed his weapon.

"In all likelihood, that's what happened," Voss said. "I know there was a weapon found next to the body." He also said he did not know if detectives found any drugs or whether Diotaiuto fired any shots.

Sorry but this just sounds really fishy...he seems to know a lot of the details about what happened but doesn't know if any drugs were found (as in...the whole purpose of the warrant?)

The concealed weapons permit, was a "major factor" in the department's decision to involve the SWAT team, Voss said.

Unreal...so any CCW holder can now automatically expect SWAT while my neighbor with no CCW permit (but he does have firearms) gets a polite knock from a 'regular' officer?

I would've answered the same way (armed) - fortunately I'd most likely be upstairs where I'd at least have a couple seconds to try and figure out if it's BG's or SWAT before I started getting shot at or flashbanged. :uhoh:

AF_INT1N0
August 6, 2005, 09:42 PM
DMF
Well sorry, but the police had already established that he probably WAS a bad guy, and the magistrate agreed. Which is how the warrant process works.
Again not a good reason to shoot a man in his house before the poor guy could get a cup of coffee. How hard would it have been to knock and wait for the guy to answer the door.

It's called PROBABLE cause, as there was PROBABLY evidence of a crime in the residence

The problem is that probable cause does not justify shooting a citizen. Even if there probably(maybe) evidence of a crime in the residence.


Also it didn't even say they had found any drugs in the first place.
Which likely means they didn't; if they had, it would be in the article.

Guess they could ask the guy (jetzt!!wos ist die droge) oh wait....Guess not.

Joejojoba111
August 6, 2005, 09:47 PM
"Well sorry, but the police had already established that he probably WAS a bad guy, and the magistrate agreed. Which is how the warrant process works."

You're starting to win me over, but I still think this is putting the cart before the horse. I understand how it could be a prevalent viewpoint, it appears a very easy mistake to make in my opinon.

For instance, and I don't want to sound arrogant because I'm really quite ignorant, but for instance a bird flies. Many may say it flies, therefore it's a bird, but some would point out that not all birds fly, and not all that flies is a bird. On a like note I would point out that not all searches find culpatory evidence. Therefore the judge signing a warrant does not mean their is evidence, and furthermore it cannot mean that the suspect is bad. To sum up, the warrant is a search for the truth, not an indicator of guilt. Just how I see it.

DMF
August 6, 2005, 09:51 PM
Again not a good reason to shoot a man in his house before the poor guy could get a cup of coffee. . .

. . . The problem is that probable cause does not justify shooting a citizen.Well let's quit mixing up the reason for doing the search with the reason for shooting. Again, arguments like what you presented are completely disingenuous, because the officers did NOT shoot him because of the PC that there was evidence in the house. They went there to search based on that PC. Based on what is known now they shot him because when the arrived to conduct the lawful search he presented a threat of serious bodily injury or death. So please don't try to mix the PC for the original crime, with the claimed justification for the shooting. They are two separate issues.

However, the PC for the evidence of the crime does relate directly to the claims some are making that he was PROBABLY not a "bad guy." By virtue of the fact the police had established it was PROBABLE he was in possession of narcotics at the residence to the magistrate judge, then it is PROBABLE he was a "bad guy."

DMF
August 6, 2005, 09:58 PM
Therefore the judge signing a warrant does not mean their is evidence, and furthermore it cannot mean that the suspect is bad. Agreed. What the judge is saying is it's PROBABLE, not that is a known fact, just probable. Also agreed that not all searches tearn up evidence of a crime, but again the standard is probable cause to believe the evidence is there, not absolute certainty the evidence is there. However, as I've said anyone claiming he is probably a good guy, based on the CCW, is ignoring the fact that the magistrate believed there was probably evidence of a crime in the possession of Diotaiuto. Not very realistic to say someone is probably a good guy, if it has been established he's probably in possession of illegal narcotics.

Coronach
August 6, 2005, 10:05 PM
The real question/problem that most people here seem to have is with the method of entry to serve this warrant. Everyone wants to know why this sort of 'dynamic entry' is needed. And, to reiterate, this was apparently NOT a dreaded 'no knock' warrant. The police, if they followed proper procedure, loudly knocked on the door and loudly announced their presence, and gave a reasonable period of time for the person inside to respond. They then forced entry into the house and attempted to secure it.

So, why is this sort of thing necessary?

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=79119&highlight=James+Beck

Now, there were problems with the eventual outcome of that situation, but the pertinent fact is this: they attempted to do warrant service the old fashioned way, by walking up to the door like gentlemen, talking to the homeowner and informing him that he was, alas, under arrest, and would he please place his hands behind his back...

Yeah, well, that didn't work out so well. Long story short, the suspect ended up pulling out a gun and shooting at the officers and killing one, prompting a massive standoff which placed the whole neighborhood at risk.

EDIT: I did a quick web search on this and found that they also might have tried another tactic, that of surrounding the house and calling on the phone for him to come out. He declined, and ended up shooting. Different idea, same outcome.

I could, I am quite certain, flood this thread with examples of where non-dynamic warrant service like this has earned quite a few police officers, quite a few suspects, and quite a few innocent bystanders untimely funerals. All it would take is a few minutes worth of work on Google. I'm equally certain that we could also flood the thread with examples of where police officers killed the homeowner/occupants in the process of conducting the entry. What we cannot do is easily determine how many dynamic entries were conducted without any harm to anyone, but I assure you the number is astounding. ONE of my PD's tactical teams did several hundred entries like this last year alone. And that is one of several teams. None of them made the news. No one died.

The key fact is that dynamic entries are far safer for everyone- officer, suspect, neighbors, occupants- in situations where it is thought likely that the suspect will resist the service of the warrant. The key is in the threat assessment, since it is obviously inappropriate to do this sort of entry for each and every warrant. The potentially lethal consequences of being too lax, however, are well known to police officers.

As to why they didn't arrest him elsewhere, well, let's think about this. He is known to be armed. Do we take him down at work, where there are plenty of potential victims and hostages? No? How about in his car, where he can go on a high-speed chase and really put a few lives at risk? How about in his front yard, where he can retreat back into his house where we can have the armed standoff we've been trying to avoid, or dive into a car, or go running through the quiet residential neighborhood popping off rounds? Oh, we should have him surrounded? Really? Crossfire, anyone? Bueller? Bueller?

The fact is that no arrest technique is perfect for all situations. Sometimes you DO take him down at work. Sometimes you DO box him in with cruisers and haul him out of his car. Sometimes you DO get him as he's pumping gas at the local Stop-n-Rob.

And yes, sometimes you DO kick down his door pursuant to warrant and take him while he's in his jammies, because it is safer for everyone this way, especially him.

You'll get shootings out of all of these scenarios, too. If the police end up blowing him away outside of a crowded club where he was DJing and place countless others at risk, I'm sure we'll all be screeching that they should have kicked in his door while he was asleep. Heck, take him in a traffic stop and he scoots off and blasts a carload of nuns on their way to confession and I know we will be. And God help the Public Information Officer if he takes and kills a hostage. How could the cops let that happen?

These are the realities of policing. For those of you who cannot get past the WOD, consider that the same realities present themselves with perpetrators of good old fashioned Common Law crimes, too.

Mike

fastbolt
August 6, 2005, 10:09 PM
Well let's quit mixing up the reason for doing the search with the reason for shooting.

Yep, some folks just don't watch out for that first step in their rush-to-judgment when they start to spin some reasoning for their arguments. It's a doozy to trip over, too ... and a lot of people always seem to trip over it.;)

It's always interesting when some interested citizens, and especially some attorneys, experience 'interactive training simulations', and generally always make worse 'deadly force decision' mistakes than they complain about cops making all the time ... just in simulated training environements, without real bullets facing them ... and these sorts of folks just KNOW they have the answers ... unlike the rest of us who have to do these things for a living, while we try to continue with that "living" part for the end of the day, and our families.

I used to love that bumper sticker from the 60's ... the one that said something to the effect, "The Next Time You Need a Cop, Call A Hippie".

duck hunt
August 6, 2005, 10:54 PM
Coming late to the party, reason below:

Like a lot of folks here IIRC, I always answer the door armed, particularly in the off peak hours, as I consider 6am to be. I had some friends ambush me with doughnuts the other night at 11:30 (I've just had a baby so they knew I'd be up) and they said they were joking as they pulled up to the house about how armed I would be. IMNSHO there is a big difference between "pulling a gun" and walking to the door with one in your hand, in your own house. Apparently the SWAT team didn't think so.

Additionally, I have in the past had actual bad guys kick in my door, and they did knock first too, so I don't know if I'd be waiting for the police to show me their papers before beginning defensive fire. I know the whole "don't shoot at an unidentified target" rule, but when wood splinters, all bets are off. I've got a baby in here I've got to defend.

Thirdly, not surprised that they called in SWAT to serve a piddly possession warrant on a CCW holder. I've had a traffic cop call for backup pulling me for expired tags, and I'm 5'2 and look like Velma on Scooby Doo. Not exactly threatening. But I guess we're all scary gun-toting loose cannons in somebody's eyes.

The Real Hawkeye
August 6, 2005, 11:59 PM
Really? Always? 100% of the time? You know that for sure? I guess you've never "heard" of Deputy Kyle Dinkheller. The deputy was killed by someone who was legally transporting a rifle in his truck. After the traffic stop Deputy Dinkheller's killer loaded the rifle and attecked Dinkheller, killing him. How do we know? It was all on the cruiser cam tape.

With all the "facts" you "hear" how come you don't know about incidents like that?I am well aware of that case. I studied it in criminal procedure, IIRC. Saw the video too. Not the same thing. That guy got out of his car, moseyed on over to his trunk, popped it open and retrieved his weapon, with the cop standing there watching him do it the whole time.

All I said was that if he fears a hunter, who has his gun locked up, so much as to treat him like he does, he should also fear everyone else, because anyone can be carrying a concealed weapon. Those with licenses to do so are far less likely to be criminals than any Joe picked at random. Or are you arguing that a hunter or CCW license holder who carries his gun in accordance with law is MORE likely a criminal than the average traffic stop? That's absurd. But if you treat them differently, you must believe that to be the case.

Double Naught Spy
August 7, 2005, 12:23 AM
Except that the possessor of a CCW permit, here in my home state of Virginia, has been fingerprinted, has had to demonstrate proof of training, has had a background check, and has willingly submitted to all this.

How many criminals do you know of who go thru all that just to carry legally? Hint: Not very many.

Two things are potentially wrong here. First and as I noted earlier, there are those that manage to have a long history of criminal activity, but manage to remain under the radar. Getting a permit means they can carry legally. In other words, they won't get in trouble for carrying a gun illegally if they have a permit for it.

The second is that while the guy may have gotten his CCW and was not a criminal at the time does not mean his situation has not changed. There are all sorts of first time offenders that have a lifelong history of no legal problems until they do something and get caught.

The CCW and background check only means that at the time it was issued, there was no record of serious criminal activity, and apparently the dope conviction at a teenager wasn't an issue for the CCW.

JohnKSa
August 7, 2005, 01:37 AM
loudly knocked on the door and loudly announced their presence, and gave a reasonable period of time for the person inside to respond.What's a "reasonable period of time"?

DMF
August 7, 2005, 01:42 AM
What's a "reasonable period of time"?As discussed earlier in this thread, and in previous threads, there is no set time as the circumstances of each individual case dictate what is reasonable.

JohnKSa
August 7, 2005, 02:16 AM
Ok, being perfectly honest, isn't the general idea that the time between knocking and breaching is specifically chosen to be short enough to prevent the person from preparing to repel the intrusion and also to prevent them from destroying evidence?

And wouldn't that mean that it's also probably too short for a person to rouse from sleep and perform the basic preparations that a reasonable person would perform before opening the door?

Or, asked another way. Would you say that it's common to arrive at a residence with a breaching team and yet not use them?

Kamicosmos
August 7, 2005, 02:28 AM
I had a hypothetical thread like this awhile back that got locked cause it turned into a cop bashing thread. But I asked how to handle a situation of the 'home invasion' vs 'wrong address dynamic entry' type. Bascially shoot or take your chances that they are cops and they decide not to light you up, 'just in case'?

I don't answer my door when I don't expect someone to be coming. Call me xenophobic, paranoid, whatever, but I don't want to interact with random strangers selling crap, promoting the school football team, looking for work, whatever. The 'No Soliciting' sign on the door should indicate that I don't answer for just anybody.

So, I sure as heck will not answer the door at 6 am!! (And, I'm not going to get out of my nice warm bed to look out the windows either. I would roll over and go back to sleep.) So, a reasonable time would pass, the door would be kicked in, and regardless of hearing 'police with warrant' I will be sitting in or behind my bed, hand/shotgun ready, pointed at door, 911 on cell phone, dog going nuts...

Anyone care to guess what the papers will say after that little confrontation passes? :scrutiny:

motoman
August 7, 2005, 03:02 AM
I was planing on my next house being a poured concrete home. I think its going to need some further reinforcements as well.

-Bullet resistant glass in master bedroon
-Steel door frame poured into walls w/heavy steel door
-cameras on the outside and inside of house with monitors inside master beedroom
-fenced yard w/locking gates
-early warning system outside motion/seismic
-Alarms on all doors and glass with seperate zones identifed for each
-Dogs

It would sure take the suprise out of a situation like this. You could also see who it was trying to force there way into you home. It would also give you time to verify if they were real police or actors who only play police to do home invasions.

I live a clean life, I surely don't expect to be raided. In fact I feel a fake raid/home invasion is a lot more likely scenario than a real raid or a mistaken address raid.

Physical barriers would provide a good piece of mind and most likely stop an unfortunate event like this from occuring.

It would also provide a more suitable gun storage facility than most people currently have :D

DMF
August 7, 2005, 03:04 AM
Would you say that it's common to arrive at a residence with a breaching team and yet not use them?I can't speak for all cops, just my experience. Every single warrant I've been on we had a plan to force entry. However, a rough estimate would be we've forced entry less than 10-15% of the time. Lots of times I've knocked, announced, waited, knocked and announced again, and waited some more, etc, etc, all the while hoping the occupants weren't preparing an ambush. All because we weren't sure we could justify forcing entry sooner. None of us are looking to trample anyone's rights, we're just trying to do our jobs, and do them the right way, protecting the rights and lives of ALL involved. That's the reality of knock and announce warrants.

bogie
August 7, 2005, 03:36 AM
Sheesh.

Unless you're part of the crew who thinks that drug possession=hangin' offense, I think there's something a little fishy.

Especially if there isn't any drug possession.

beerslurpy
August 7, 2005, 03:47 AM
all the while hoping the occupants weren't preparing an ambush

That's respect money cant buy. Thanks 2nd amendment!

kbr80
August 7, 2005, 03:50 AM
That's respect money cant buy. Thanks 2nd amendment!




+1

I can respec that DMF. Thanks for that.

RevDisk
August 7, 2005, 04:47 AM
Okay. Now think, "Tactics". Assume for the moment it wasn't the cops. Do YOU go wandering out your front door with your pistol in your hand, not knowing what's out there? Assume for the moment that whatever got your attention was indeed some Bad Guy. Don't you first try to figure out what's going on, before exposing your Precious Bod to some forces of evil?

Na. Normally I carry a Mossberg 500 or SAR-1 to the door when folks knock at my door at 6:15 am. That's a bit early for any UPS/Fedex guy, and no one I know would do so without calling me first.

Ergo, it's someone I don't know and probably is not someone I'd invite into my house.

:p

Jeff White
August 7, 2005, 07:19 AM
Beerslurpy said;
Though having a rifle instead of a small pistol probably helps. Better to take a few down with you than to end up as some forgotten paperwork in a police station. If cops start dying as a result of their blatantly tyranical actions, maybe it will give them pause.

And then he said;

The only way it will stop is if lots of cops start dying and lots of other cops start demanding that their superiors not make them carry out these raids.

Just so we understand each other, you're openly, on a public forum, advocating the shooting of police officers as a way of changing policy? :cuss:

The Real Hawkeye said;
Those with licenses to do so are far less likely to be criminals than any Joe picked at random.

You need to get over the fallacy that the issuance of a concealed carry permit by some entity of government is equivalent to sainthood. It's not. All kinds of people who have been vetted by all kinds of different processes have committed crime and violent acts. Police officers, Judges, people who hold Top Secret SCI clearances, even a sitting president have all committed crimes. People who at other times would be very calm and mild mannered have been known to lose it and do strange things over minor traffic violations. So yes I have separated people from their lawfully possessed firearms while I've written them a ticket or warning in the past and I will continue to do so. I also don't hesitate to have other traffic violators exit their vehicle if I think I need to keep a better eye on them for some reason.

Or are you arguing that a hunter or CCW license holder who carries his gun in accordance with law is MORE likely a criminal than the average traffic stop?

No, I'm saying it would be foolish not to separate someone who you knew had a weapon, from that weapon while you are taking enforcement action. Especially if you are working alone.

No one is handcuffed, they are just moved to a position where they couldn't readily access the weapon while I'm writing the citation or warning.

Many people who weren't criminals before they got into the altercation have assaulted officers over some kind of enforcement action. Heck we had a State Supreme Court Justice get in a physical altercation with an officer in Northern Illinois over a traffic stop some years ago. I don't take anyones credentials, no matter who they were issued by as proof positive that that person is not a threat to me.

People who hold CCW permits have for years been able to hold themselves up as the most law abiding in society. There is one thing you have to face though. As CCW becomes more prevalent, people who really shouldn't have them, will get them, and they will misuse them. And those of you who are willing to read an article about a bad cop and paint all of us with the same broad brush, had better be prepared for the same kind of public scrutiny. Because the media will certainly enjoy making CCW holders look bad as much as they enjoy making the police look bad. Welcome to the club :uhoh:.

Jeff

Coronach
August 7, 2005, 07:37 AM
We really need to divorce ourself of the notion that just because someone has a CCW permit, they must be a good guy. Yes, it makes it overwhelmingly likely that he is, but nothing is 100%. I have personally witnessed the arrest of a CCW permit holder for DUI, and the gun he was (legally, but for the intoxication part) CCWing was stolen, from a burglary that (oh hey, guess what?) he committed. :scrutiny:

How do I know this? Finger print evidence is a stone wench.

Yeah, yeah, I know. We're just targeting the gunowners. :rolleyes:

Now, that is all one massive aside, so let's not hijack the thread with it. My point is and remains simply that possession of a CCW license, like any other license (or a badge, for that matter), is not always indicative that the person holding it is a good guy. It makes it quite likely that one is on the up and up, but it also does not prevent one from being a drug dealer who is willing to kill a cop.


This remains, as almost-always, unable to be called, lacking a thorough investigation.

Mike

TallPine
August 7, 2005, 10:33 AM
Just so we understand each other, you're openly, on a public forum, advocating the shooting of police officers as a way of changing policy?

"And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling in terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand? [...] The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt!" —Alexander Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago (Chapter 1 "Arrest")

The Real Hawkeye
August 7, 2005, 11:10 AM
A number of the police officers on the forum had something to say similar to the following.Two things are potentially wrong here. First and as I noted earlier, there are those that manage to have a long history of criminal activity, but manage to remain under the radar. Getting a permit means they can carry legally. In other words, they won't get in trouble for carrying a gun illegally if they have a permit for it.

The second is that while the guy may have gotten his CCW and was not a criminal at the time does not mean his situation has not changed. There are all sorts of first time offenders that have a lifelong history of no legal problems until they do something and get caught.

The CCW and background check only means that at the time it was issued, there was no record of serious criminal activity, and apparently the dope conviction at a teenager wasn't an issue for the CCW.Now, the point never was that a CCW license made it impossible that the person in question might be a homicidal maniac. We are talking the odds here, nothing else. Reasonable people shape their behavior based on known odds. That is to say, as between some random Joe and a CCW license holder, which is MORE LIKELY to go homicidal? The answer to THAT question should inform and shape the reaction of a reasonable person to the traffic stop or warrant service in question. It is an incontrovertible fact that anyone with a CCW license is many times LESS likely to be a homicidal maniac than the average Joe picked at random, therefore logic should dictate that your precaution level should be less, not more, with a CCW license holder, and more, not less, with someone who is not a CCW license holder. If you do just the reverse of this, the only possible reasonable explanation is a desire to discourage CCW licenses. The only alternative possible explanation is that you are not very bright and don't realize that non-CCW license holders can also carry concealed deadly weapons (handguns) readily available on their persons. Which is it? I have thus far not heard any evidence of any logical third alternative explanation.

The Real Hawkeye
August 7, 2005, 11:14 AM
Score one for TALLPINE. Nice use of a salient quote, there. :)

F4GIB
August 7, 2005, 04:31 PM
The police claim that they were looking for drugs but after several days they haven't said that they found anything. If they HAD, you know they would be telling everyone about it at every opportunity.
http://cbs4.com/floridanews/FL--PoliceShooting-dn/resources_news_html

DMF
August 7, 2005, 04:47 PM
F4GIB, but you know very well the presence or absence of the evidence is not really relevant. If the warrant was properly obtained, then police had a valid reason to be there to search. If the occupant presented a threat of serious bodily injury or death, they were justified in using lethal force. You know very well that the standard for warrants is PROBABLE cause, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore it is possible for a search to turn up no evidence, and still be a completely valid search.

If you want to attack the search then attack the way in which the police established PC. However, since no info is available right now on how they establsihed PC, any attack or defense on that issue would be pure speculation.

BTW, "several days?" :rolleyes: It's been two days.

DMF
August 7, 2005, 04:55 PM
Reasonable people shape their behavior based on known odds. Known odds? Odds as in probabilities? Sort of like the probabilities used when establishing "PROBABLE cause?" Hawkeye please keep your own words in mind during future discussions about LEO actions based on probabilities, especially when the probability of things has been previously established to a magistrate judge.

Coronach
August 7, 2005, 04:58 PM
Score one for TALLPINE. Nice use of a salient quote, there.If we are comparing a legally obtained warrant, issued by a magistrate, in a manner prescribed by the Constitution of the United States of America, with Stalin's rounding up and subsequent mass executions of the 'dissidents' in the Soviet Union, we have truly divirced ourselves from reality and plunged throught the looking glass into the land of rhetoric.

The fact of the matter is that things like this have happened since, oh, say, 1780 something. Cops back in the 'good ole days' would execute warrant service any old way they pleased and if they shot the guy inside, hey. They had a warrant. He must have been a bad guy, they shot him. The standards for such things are higher now than they ever have been in the past, and I firmly agree that this is a good thing. However, we are mistaking increased media scrutiny and crtiticism of these events for an indication that the cops are running amok and shooting citizens willy nilly.

Mike

beerslurpy
August 7, 2005, 05:01 PM
Wow TallPine, that was a very good save. Thanks. +1

And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family?

If the choice is between shooting police officers and being shot myself, then the answer is one only a graduate of law school could possibly get wrong. But the choice isnt really that complicated.

Since the choice is really between shooting no police officers and shooting a few police officers before I am murdered by them, then I think even a lawyer could get that one right. I would do so not out of concern for my own life, but out of concern for the rest of society, should such tyranny go unopposed.

The Real Hawkeye
August 7, 2005, 05:02 PM
Known odds? Odds as in probabilities? Sort of like the probabilities used when establishing "PROBABLE cause?" Hawkeye please keep your own words in mind during future discussions about LEO actions based on probabilities, especially when the probability of things has been previously established to a magistrate judge.Huh? What does one thing have to do with the other? Probable cause means more likely than not, by an objective reasonableness standard, the guy in question is a crook, or the place in question has evidence of a crime. The word probable, however, can be applied to other things as well, such as my point about the known probability of criminality as between CCW license holders vs the general public. That information is available and scientifically verifiable. Not sure what you're complaining about.

The Real Hawkeye
August 7, 2005, 05:08 PM
I would do so not out of concern for my own life, but out of concern for the rest of society, should such tyranny go unopposed.Those are some beautiful words, BeerSlurpy.

beerslurpy
August 7, 2005, 05:09 PM
If we are comparing a legally obtained warrant, issued by a magistrate, in a manner prescribed by the Constitution of the United States of America, with Stalin's rounding up and subsequent mass executions of the 'dissidents' in the Soviet Union, we have truly divirced ourselves from reality and plunged throught the looking glass into the land of rhetoric.

If everything was kosher, how come there were no drugs? Someone lied under oath. Want to make a wager that person will ever be punished?

If this guy was guilty of no crime except defending his house with a gun (against an armed raid at 6am!) then someone should be charged with murder. Will you at least admit that?

If the War on Drugs isnt a political war, then I dont know what qualifies. We have 2 million political prisoners in jail right now because of this, and countless others murdered.

The question is not one of fundamental difference, but one of degree.

Kamicosmos
August 7, 2005, 05:10 PM
We really need to divorce ourself of the notion that just because someone has a CCW permit, they must be a good guy. Yes, it makes it overwhelmingly likely that he is, but nothing is 100%.

And the exact same statement can be applied to LEOs. Replace CCW permit with State Issued Badge, hence this discussion.

Elmer
August 7, 2005, 05:26 PM
Updated: 01:11 PM EDT
Alcoa shares may climb 25 percent - Barron's


NEW YORK, Aug 7 (Reuters) - Shares of Alcoa may be poised to rise 25 percent over the next 12 months if demand for its products picks up and improvements in the aluminum producer's operations continue, Barron's newspaper said in its latest edition.

But the aluminum market may be poised for recovery, as customers' inventories fall and pricing firms. And Alcoa is in a prime position to take advantage, having pursued global growth initiatives and cut costs, Barron's said.

Also, Alcoa shares looks cheap, trading at about 16 times estimated earnings for 2005, below the Standard & Poor's 500 index's multiple of 17 and far below the company's own average of 28 over the past five years, the newspaper said.

And Alcoa is seeing growing demand in markets including the United States, China, Brazil, South Korea, Russia and India, Barron's reported.



I'm Buying!

beerslurpy
August 7, 2005, 05:30 PM
The delicious taste of spam. Did someone hijack his account or is he itching for a ban?

DMF
August 7, 2005, 05:38 PM
If everything was kosher, how come there were no drugs? What part of PROBABLE in probable cause do you not understand?

DigitalWarrior
August 7, 2005, 05:42 PM
Wow. I think posting a stock tip here makes even bit less sense than 20 fat white guys guessing what took place between people they do not know, in a place they have never been to, under circumstances unknown to them. :D

DW
cranky fat white guy

DMF
August 7, 2005, 05:49 PM
What does one thing have to do with the other?

Well Hawkeye, in this thread you said:
". . . the cop should breath a sigh of relief when he sees that this guy has a CCW license, because, unlike the general public, he knows for a fact that this guy is very likely an upstanding non-criminal type who respects the law."

Which ignores that while most CCW holders are law abiding citizens, in this case it was determined by a magistrate that there was probably evidence of a crime in Diotaiuto's residence, and if in fact it was there then Diotaiuto probably put it there, and therefore Diotaiuto probably was NOT "an non-criminal type who respects the law."

Your line of logic on this thread is the cops should ignore the probabilities related to the specific facts of a case, in favor of the probabilities about the general population. Under that same twisted logic one could say most parents are not child molestors, or most homeowners are not murders, and are very likely "upstanding non-criminal types who resect the law," so we should just ignore the probabilities about a particular suspect, and base all actions on the probabilities of some larger demographic. That logic is beyond stupid, but it's what you're pushing with the statements about "cops breathing a sigh of relief" merely because someone has a CCW. :rolleyes:

Elmer
August 7, 2005, 06:07 PM
The delicious taste of spam. Did someone hijack his account or is he itching for a ban?

Wow. I think posting a stock tip here makes even bit less sense


I was just trying to be helpful. After reading some of these posts, it occurred to me, that with this many tin foil hats being worn, perhaps Alcoa stock would be a good investment. Apparently Barron's agrees. Perhaps they're reading some of these threads.....

:scrutiny:

Elmer
August 7, 2005, 06:10 PM
People who hold CCW permits have for years been able to hold themselves up as the most law abiding in society. There is one thing you have to face though. As CCW becomes more prevalent, people who really shouldn't have them, will get them, and they will misuse them. And those of you who are willing to read an article about a bad cop and paint all of us with the same broad brush, had better be prepared for the same kind of public scrutiny. Because the media will certainly enjoy making CCW holders look bad as much as they enjoy making the police look bad. Welcome to the club



Wow, Jeff! Good analogy! I may steal it for use in some other threads.

carebear
August 7, 2005, 06:25 PM
What was the greatest realistic penalty the crime, for which the evidence that was warranted to search for, would have warranted?

Misdemeanor possession?

A couple years for possession with intent to distribute?

I can't think of any simple possession charges that hold a capital penalty.

Ergo, perhaps in such cases it would not be unreasonable to try avoid using enforcement techniques which make it MORE "probable" that somebody might DIE in the service of the warrant.

He was not known to be violent.

He was not suspected of a violent crime.

The warrant was looking, in the end, for evidence of mere possession.

And yet we use the same technique the US Marshall's service uses for high-risk warrant service against known violent armed convicted felons, escapees and repeat offenders? :scrutiny:

All I'm asking for is to apply the continuum of force to warrant service before the actual interaction takes place.

Yep, that might make it riskier for the police, but, again, they signed up for the job and the rights and safety of the innocent (even the "suspicious innocent"), in our system, trump the rights of the state or its agents.

Pre-trial, that dude was innocent as a lamb, probable cause to suspect non-violent possession or not. Setting him up to be gunned down by overly aggressive tactics was an immoral farce.

DMF
August 7, 2005, 06:37 PM
I can't think of any simple possession charges that hold a capital penalty. He did not face a capital penalty based on a possession charge, he faced lethal force to stop the threat of serious bodily injury or death he presented when the cops arrived to do their jobs, serving the warrant. As I said earlier, "let's quit mixing up the reason for doing the search with the reason for shooting."

Jeff White
August 7, 2005, 06:38 PM
Beerslurpy said;

If everything was kosher, how come there were no drugs? Someone lied under oath. Want to make a wager that person will ever be punished?

This doesn't look like no evidence of a crime was found. In fact it's starting to look pretty kosher.

http://cbs4.com/floridanews/FL--PoliceShooting-dn/resources_news_html
Warrant shows Sunrise police were looking for drugs in shooting
Sunday August 07, 2005

SUNRISE, Fla. (AP) Police officers who shot and killed a man in his house had a search warrant and were looking for drugs, a newspaper report Sunday said.

Anthony Andrew Diotaiuto, 23, of Sunrise, was pronounced dead on the scene of his home Friday.

Police spokesman Lt. Robert Voss said Diotaiuto was armed and possibly pointed his gun at police when two SWAT team officers shot him.

Police thought there was drug dealing going on in the home, and that there might be violence because Diotaiuto had a valid concealed weapons permit, the South Florida Sun-Sentinel reported Sunday.

According to the search warrant, the police were looking for money, bookkeeping records, firearms and other evidence that Diotaiuto was a drug dealer. The warrant was provided to the newspaper by Diotaiuto's family.

Cannabis and drug paraphernalia, along with firearms and a BB gun, were listed as items seized, but the warrant did not specify the amount of drugs or what type of paraphernalia was confiscated.

Sunrise Detective Michael Calise signed the search warrant, the newspaper reported.

Phone calls to the Sunrise police department spokespeople were not returned on Sunday.

``I'm borderline insane because of all I've had to deal with,'' Marlene Diotaiuto, Anthony's mother said. ``I can't believe that they have denied this society and his family and his friends all the beauty that he brought us every day.''

Friends said Diotaiuto was not a drug dealer and described him a hardworking and caring person. Outside his home on Saturday, a poster apparently addressed to police read: ``Did you find what you were looking for?''

Flowers, stuffed animals and candles were part of a memorial erected on the sidewalk by mourners.

``That was a waste of a life,'' said neighbor Merissa Keefe.

Police have said Diotaiuto had one previous arrest in 1998 for marijuana possession in Cooper City.

Information from: South Florida Sun-Sentinel, http://www.sun-sentinel.com

Aren't cannibis and drug paraphenalia evidence that illegal activity was occuring on the property? Wouldn't that suggest that perhaps whatever probable cause that Detective Calise presented to the magistrate may have had some truth to it? It's not unheard of for the information that led to the warrant being applied for to be overtaken by events and the mother lode of contraband to be gone by the time the officers get a warrant and organize the raid.

If this guy was guilty of no crime except defending his house with a gun (against an armed raid at 6am!) then someone should be charged with murder. Will you at least admit that?

It looks like Diotaiuto was guilty of possession of cannabis and drug paraphenalia at the least.

If the War on Drugs isnt a political war, then I dont know what qualifies. We have 2 million political prisoners in jail right now because of this, and countless others murdered.

This isn't about the war on drugs. It's about if the police were right to come with enough force to accomplish the mission and if it was reasonable for them to shoot Diotaiuto in the course of conducting their lawful business. It makes no difference if Diotaiuto was suspected of dealing drugs or being a child molester. Both are violations of the law and the police and courts are charged by the public with enforcing those laws. If you don't like the drug laws, then the way to get them changed is to elect representatives who will repeal them.

The Real Hawkeye said;
The word probable, however, can be applied to other things as well, such as my point about the known probability of criminality as between CCW license holders vs the general public. That information is available and scientifically verifiable. Not sure what you're complaining about.

We're not discussing criminality here. We're discussing officer safety. I know that every encounter I have with a citizen is an armed encounter. There are always at least two firearms present (the ones I carry). There have been been many instances where officers have been assaulted, injured and killed by people who had no prior criminal record but who for whatever reason snapped. The fact that someone has been issued a CCW, a badge and police credentials, a priests vestments, has been elected or appointed to the bench, has no immediate bearing on how they may react to contact from the police. Only a fool would tell himself that person has a CCW, so there is no way he'd ever be a threat to me. It's much more prudent to make note that that person is more likely to be armed then someone else you may encounter and take whatever action you feel appropriate based on your gut feeling after making contact.

In this case, Diotaiuto was suspected of being a drug dealer. Was he, we don't know yet. But we do know that he had firearms and could reasonably assume that he carried one based on the fact he had a CCW. We could also reasonably assume that since he was suspected of being involved in the drug trade, and the drug trade is often violent, that he was capable of using his weapons to defend his drugs and cash. I'd say based on that, the use of the SWAT team to serve the warrant was most likely appropriate. Rival drug dealers may run down down to the local police supply house and buy raid jackets or POLICE marked T-shirts in order to make ripping off their rival a bit easier, but I don't know of any instances where they've disguised themselves as a SWAT team with level IV armor, kevlar helmets and other turn out gear. Diotaiuto was more likely to recognize a SWAT officer in his turn out kit as a legitimate police officer then a scruffy looking narcotics detective wearing a raid jacket over his street clothes

Kamicosmos said;
And the exact same statement can be applied to LEOs. Replace CCW permit with State Issued Badge, hence this discussion.

No one is denying that. In fact, in an earlier post I said that possession of a CCW, a badge and police credentials or a clerical collar was no guarantee that someone was a good guy.

Jeff

Molon Labe
August 7, 2005, 06:41 PM
If someone breaks down our door at 6 in the morning, it matters not who it is, what they're yelling, or why they're doing it.

In the interest of defending myself and my family, I will shoot first and ask questions later.

jefnvk
August 7, 2005, 06:43 PM
If this guy was guilty of no crime except defending his house with a gun (against an armed raid at 6am!) then someone should be charged with murder. Will you at least admit that?

Nope. Unless you can prove they went in there with the intent of killing the guy.

How about we look at it this way. You are the officer serving the warrant on a house where you know there are weapons. A guy comes around the corner with a gun in his hand. Do you wait for him to start shooting.

Judging from the responses of tactical scenarios of people on this board, my guess would be the same thing the police did. I always hear things like 'better judged than carried' and 'your first priority is your own life'

Molon Labe
August 7, 2005, 06:49 PM
Aren't cannibis and drug paraphenalia evidence that illegal activity was occuring on the property?Illegal?

Perhaps.

But not unlawful.

I am very tempted to describe how things would have turned out differently had I been raided instead of Mr. Diotaiuto. But I'm confident my posting privileges would be quickly revoked...

roo_ster
August 7, 2005, 06:49 PM
This Case
Not enough information to make a confident "good shoot" vs "jack boot" call. ;)

Two things do give me cause for worry though. One, the whole bit about them deciding to pull out the paramilitary LEO unit because the suspect was a valid CHL holder. Also, there has been no claim to have found drugs. That leads me to believe that there were none. Perhaps they relied on one confidential informant's word? Don't know. We will have to wait & see.

Reaction to Threat
I answer the door armed. How apparently armed depends on the circumstances. Saturday at 10AM, you would not know I was armed. At O'Dark:30, you can bet your azz that I'm more likely to have my 1911 ready & visible.

Also, in the face of a credible potential threat, I can not hole up like Art. I have a kiddo in the house and absolutely must interpose myself between the threat & my boy. That means going to where I think the threat is as expetitiously as possible or running like a scalded-azz ape to his room & snatching him back to the master BR, depending on the circumstances. Either way, I am likely to move past a window with a firearm. So, those SWAT guys who are watching for armed guys through the windows now have their excuse to bust the door & shoot my happy self. Good thing I'm insured.

LEO Time vs Citizens' Lives
If the LEOs have to do more legwork to ensure that the the guy they are to raid really is a threat, so be it. The word of one criminal really ought not be sufficient to raid a man's house. It might be probable cause according to the magistrate, but I have less faith in criminal honesty. If they have to be creative and take more time to minimize the liklihood that somebody is going to get shot, so be it. Since I (along with other taxpayers) pay the costs, I think minimizing the deaths of citizens during raids to be worth spending the extra dollars.

WoSD vs Citizens' Lives
There is no drug worth killing a man over*. That includes efforts to eradicate the use of the drug and sale of the drug.

I get especially cranky when folks who are not involved in either end of the mess (drug sales/use or drug prohibition) get caught up in the machinations of the drug-law-enforcement industry. I am less cranky when users/seller/enforcers get harmed. They made the choice to jump into that snake pit.

* The statement covers the WoSD. I'm sure someone can fabricate some outlandish circumstancewhere a life-saving drug was being witheld from a person or persons such that it would morally justify killing for a drug.

ksnecktieman
August 7, 2005, 06:51 PM
I think I agree with DMF, when the police came to his house in the wee hours of the morning, and he met them half asleep, with a pistol in his hand they may have had no choice but to shoot him. (I answer the door with a pistol in my hand unless I am expecting someone.)

BUT, why did they not arrest him at one of his jobs, where he was more than likely required to be unarmed? This was an error in strategy, not one of tactics.

Jeff White
August 7, 2005, 06:58 PM
ksnecktieman said;
BUT, why did they not arrest him at one of his jobs, where he was more than likely required to be unarmed? This was an error in strategy, not one of tactics.

They were serving a search warrant not an arrest warrant. The information they had said the drugs, money and book keeping records were at his home, not at his place of employment. If he had complied and allowed the search and nothing was found, he wouldn't have been arrested.

Jeff

Cacique500
August 7, 2005, 07:00 PM
We're not discussing criminality here. We're discussing officer safety.

I understand the whole 'officer safety' thing...but everytime I hear that it reminds me of the whole 'it's for the children' thing. I am by no means minimizing what you guys put on the line each and every day, but you did sign up for it. The guy walking downstairs at 6 a.m. in his jammies getting popped in the head didn't. What about *his* safety?

and that there might be violence because Diotaiuto had a valid concealed weapons permit

My issue with this whole thing is that these guys decided to go in with a SWAT team because the guy had a CCW permit. I understand every CCW holder isn't a saint, but I think the statistics prove that the vast majority are.

carebear
August 7, 2005, 07:11 PM
If it isn't an arrest warrant then how dangerous was he really suspected of being? They could go to his work and contact him and run the search during the day.

They had the warrant on the house. Just go to his job and ask him to come with. If he doesn't, then search against his wishes (revising the warrant as appropriate). If you have a warrant to search the home against his will and must do it when he's home, why do it at a time when it is very reasonable and more likely for someone to resist an invasion in a case of mistaken identity? Especially someone who has taken the time to get a CHL and thus is predictably more likely to respond like those of us on this board? Someone on the police side should have thought it through before launching a pre-dawn assault on a defensive minded person.

If he's a violent felon hit him hard. But if you're just looking for drugs, and the only real justification for more force is a lawful CCW permit, just ask him to comply with the search warrant at a decent hour.

If I recall correctly, someone noted most searches are allowed non-violently when someone bothers to ask first, warrant or not. Car or home.

Y'all are using the freaking hammer without looking at the size of the bug.

TheEgg
August 7, 2005, 07:27 PM
carebear --

+1

Jeff White
August 7, 2005, 07:51 PM
Cacique500 said;
The guy walking downstairs at 6 a.m. in his jammies getting popped in the head didn't. What about *his* safety?

Where did it say that he was popped in the head in his jammies? I must have missed that. I have seen nothing in any of the news articles that said what he did that caused the officers to shoot.

SWAT teams aren't execution squads. The vast majority of police tactical operations end with no shots being fired. Often the suspect even shoots at the police or shoots the police and is still taken alive.

My issue with this whole thing is that these guys decided to go in with a SWAT team because the guy had a CCW permit. I understand every CCW holder isn't a saint, but I think the statistics prove that the vast majority are.

Are you willing to bet your life on those statistics? Do you have any idea as to what goes in to getting a search warrant. The police had enough information to believe that Diotaiuto was involved in criminal activity that they convinced a judge that it was not a violation of his rights to enter Diotaiuto's home and search for evidence of that activity. So wouldn't it be reasonable to believe that he wasn't one of the vast majority of CCW holders who are upstanding citizens?

You guys are doing exactly what you always accuse the cops here of doing. You are closing ranks to protect a brother CCW holder. Because the state of Florida issued this guy a CCW he's automatically a good guy and the facts don't matter. Do we have, brotherhood of the CCW badge here at THR? :what:

carebear asked;

If it isn't an arrest warrant then how dangerous was he really suspected of being? They could go to his work and contact him and run the search during the day.

Oh yes, that will work well, just call the guy up and say; "Hey old man, we've received some information that you are a drug dealer and that all the evidence we need to put you away is at your house. What would be a good time for us to pop over and check it out old boy? Hate to inconvenience you but you know we have to do our jobs. If you can't make the appointment, make sure you call the office in plenty of time so we don't waste any gas driving over." :rolleyes:

Yeah, that'll work.... :confused:

If you have a warrant to search the home against his will and must do it when he's home, why do it at a time when it is very reasonable and more likely for someone to resist an invasion in a case of mistaken identity?

These things can be very time sensitive. If you don't get the warrant and the rad organized in time, the dealer may have already sold the drugs or moved the cash. Most of them don't keep their stash in the safe and go fondle it from time to time like many of us do with our gun collection. They get the stuff in, then move it as quickly as possible so that they don't get caught with it.

Warrants are often served in the early morning hours because people are moving slowly and generally less alert and capable of resistance. This may vary with the sleep habits of the suspect. I've served warrants at 10 PM because that's when the suspect was likely to be asleep.

Especially someone who has taken the time to get a CHL and thus is predictably more likely to respond like those of us on this board? Someone on the police side should have thought it through before launching a pre-dawn assault on a defensive minded person.

Well the various news articles place the time of the raid at 6 am, 6:15 am and 6:45 am. That's hardly pre-dawn. Statistics also show that most people who get a CCW don't carry very often. We've talked about that issue here in other threads.

I hate to tell you this, but many people who are involved in the drug trade are more defensive minded then most of the members here at THR. Reinforced doors, dogs, booby traps, armed people standing watch, etc. You take the intelligence you have and plan the operation so that it has the greatest chance of success with no casualties on either side. It's been proven time and again that overwhelming force accomplishes this.

Ah, the brotherhood of the CCW badge...Would we even be having this discussion if the suspect didn't have a CCW? :confused:

Jeff

The Real Hawkeye
August 7, 2005, 08:05 PM
Well Hawkeye, in this thread you said:
". . . the cop should breath a sigh of relief when he sees that this guy has a CCW license, because, unlike the general public, he knows for a fact that this guy is very likely an upstanding non-criminal type who respects the law."

Which ignores that while most CCW holders are law abiding citizens, in this case it was determined by a magistrate that there was probably evidence of a crime in Diotaiuto's residence, and if in fact it was there then Diotaiuto probably put it there, and therefore Diotaiuto probably was NOT "an non-criminal type who respects the law."

Your line of logic on this thread is the cops should ignore the probabilities related to the specific facts of a case, in favor of the probabilities about the general population. Under that same twisted logic one could say most parents are not child molestors, or most homeowners are not murders, and are very likely "upstanding non-criminal types who resect the law," so we should just ignore the probabilities about a particular suspect, and base all actions on the probabilities of some larger demographic. That logic is beyond stupid, but it's what you're pushing with the statements about "cops breathing a sigh of relief" merely because someone has a CCW.Well, DMF, after reading the first half of your post, I was about to respond that you made a fair point, as far as it goes, but then you had to get nasty about it. What a shame. Well, nasty or not, I will admit that you have a certain point as it relates to this specific circumstance, i.e., that it is reasonable for a cop to be more expectant of violent resistance if a judge has determined that the subject in question is more likely than not a criminal of some type. That would trump the CCW license as an indicator of the odds, but in general terms (such as a traffic stop) I think my point still holds up.

That said, there is still something wrong with this tactic of knocking and smashing residential doors in during the early morning hours (or any time). It seems calculated to get someone killed. The person whose house you are breaking into with gun drawn is presumed innocent of any crime, regardless of probable cause. You have to design your tactics with that in mind. Your mission is not search and destroy.

The Real Hawkeye
August 7, 2005, 08:15 PM
And yet we use the same technique the US Marshall's service uses for high-risk warrant service against known violent armed convicted felons, escapees and repeat offenders?The reason they use the SWAT team is that they have one, and want to justify the cost of maintaining one, so they will tend to stretch the mission of the SWAT team to get it used more often. Also, these guys are super enthusiastic about their job. It's a rush for them, and they WANT to be used in the worst way. That cannot help but get them more opportunities than they really should have to apply their skills.

carebear
August 7, 2005, 08:18 PM
Jeff,

Would we even be having this discussion if the suspect didn't have a CCW?

From me? Even a year ago, maybe not. My distaste for this kind of thing keeps getting exponentially greater, and I'm still a law-and-order, police are good and necessary kind of guy.

When I talked about contacting him at work I meant with a few uniforms and a detective at the same time the house is being cordoned off or at least monitored. He can't do diddly about hiding anything at that moment and he's outnumbered and has any major potential weapons by definition out of reach. Again, not a violent felon, just a guy with possession and maybe distribution; the odds are he doesn't have an AK in his desk.

If he doesn't want to ride along to witness the search and wants to make a call and you are afraid of a tipoff or something, you've got a valid warrant, have the on-site, badged and uniformed with squad cars team serve it without him there. That would make it, oh, ZERO risk of anyone getting shot resisting what the homeowner can and probably should reasonably believe to be a criminal home invasion at 6-ish in the morning.

This sort of thing may in fact take more planning, it might take more time and manpower (though I can't see how, having planned and executed squad-sized raids myself) but it definitely decreases the risk to all involved.

Save SWAT for the outlaw bikers and gang-bangers with proven or reasonably suspected actual violent armed felonies to their name.

The Real Hawkeye
August 7, 2005, 08:22 PM
Nope. Unless you can prove they went in there with the intent of killing the guy.As a cop, you should know that intent is not required for murder. Recklessness is sufficient, i.e., conduct which a reasonable person would calculate to be likely to result in someone's death or serious bodily injury. I think this situation qualifies.

It used to be called "depraved heart murder" when recklessness substitutes for intent. Don't know if that term is still used to describe it, except perhaps on the Multi State section of the Bar Exam, but it is still murder under the law.

Cacique500
August 7, 2005, 08:23 PM
You guys are doing exactly what you always accuse the cops here of doing. You are closing ranks to protect a brother CCW holder. Because the state of Florida issued this guy a CCW he's automatically a good guy and the facts don't matter. Do we have, brotherhood of the CCW badge here at THR?

Jeff, I understand what you're trying to say...but just for one second step out of your LEO mentality and try to look at this from a 'civilian' perspective.

My point is that just because he had a CCW the police found it justified to call in the SWAT team because they *expected* violence from a CCW holder. In my book, that line of logic is DEAD WRONG.

As others have said, 99.51% of us would have responded in the SAME WAY (armed) if our home was being 'broken into' at O-dark-30. What bothers most of us I think is that anyone of us could be in this guys cold dead shoes and the newspaper report would read the same...that's scary.

Would we even be having this discussion if the suspect didn't have a CCW?

Probably not. But he did have one, and the powers that be decided that his CCW permit made him enough of a risk to justify a SWAT team.

TallPine
August 7, 2005, 08:28 PM
If you don't like the drug laws, then the way to get them changed is to elect representatives who will repeal them.
With all due respect, that's not exactly true - at least not the first step.

The first step is to convince enough people that the WOD is a travesty and and an outrage, so that they will vote to elect representatives who will repeal them.

And if the incident in question (as it appears) is not more than enough reason to stop the WOD, then I don't know what would be (but apparently it is not for many people :( )

The fact that the victim had a CCW permit means nothing either way to me, except that it appears that the police might have been more "trigger happy" because of that information.

Now, maybe the guy is(was) a total jerk and attempted to shoot LEOs after clearly identifying them as such - that would make this incident a lot different.

But ... when a raid is executed at a specific time of day when the raidee is expected to be sleepy and confused, but at the same time expect him/her/them to be able to clearly distinguish LEOs from BGs in a split second, then I think something is terribly wrong :banghead:

For your (LEOs) sake and mine, I sincerely hope this sort of thing never happens at my home. I don't do dope, or anything else that I am aware of that would warrant (pun alert!) such a raid, so I would have to assume that anyone breaking down my door is a boogeyman. That and I am armed 100% of the time at home, not just at 6am or 10pm.

beerslurpy
August 7, 2005, 08:32 PM
Nope. Unless you can prove they went in there with the intent of killing the guy.

I beleive the LEOs conducting the raid in the early AM (a time they chose) put him in a situation in which he would likely employ armed self defense. They knew this would be his reaction because they knew he was a CCW license holder. They then intentionally added SWAT to ensure that his armed self defense resulted in his death.

That sounds like intentional action that would knowingly result in his death to me. Which is murder.

Double Naught Spy
August 7, 2005, 08:37 PM
Real Hawkeye, you are a funny person. Had I known that you represented several officers in some online local, I might have phrased my wording differently, but I will still address you as an individual to your comments. By your comments, you are obviously not a cop, have not been present for service of warrants where the cops only knocked softly before breaking in a door, and apparently don't have direct knowledge of cops making it rougher on CCW permit holders which you claim has become standard.

Since you apparently are concerned with attention to detail, then I would like to point out that your summarization of my comments of a CCW making it impossible that the person might be a homicidal maniac, then let me point out that I never said anything absolute. I simply explained how it was possible that a person with a CCW permit could still turn out to be a bad guy. I find it extremely naive when people start vouching for a person online simply because that person has X credentials when the people doing the vouching don't actually know the person and don't have firsthand knowledge of the incident in question, like you and your very incorrect summaries of hw police deal with CCW permit holders.

You said you were basing your comments on the odds. Fair enough. I was too. My comments concern those on the bad tail end of the curve and how to explain that tail. If a person falls outside the odds, then how do you explain it? Odds are not just about recognizing what happens most commonly, but also about explaining why events happen outside of the normal curve, if it is a normal curve, or rather, what happens outside of the various potential norms (as in bi or trimodal curves).

I appreciate your comment that I might not be that bright to which I would suggest that you apparently need a monocle for that one hawkeye of yours as the sharpness of your vision has apparently been lost. I think I will call you Natty Bumppo. It seems to fit better.

Deavis
August 7, 2005, 08:43 PM
Rival drug dealers may run down down to the local police supply house and buy raid jackets or POLICE marked T-shirts in order to make ripping off their rival a bit easier, but I don't know of any instances where they've disguised themselves as a SWAT team with level IV armor, kevlar helmets and other turn out gear. Diotaiuto was more likely to recognize a SWAT officer in his turn out kit as a legitimate police officer then a scruffy looking narcotics detective wearing a raid jacket over his street clothes

Jeff did the SWAT officers gave him enough time to recognize their outfits and drop his weapon before they opened fire? Of course they didn't. Many of you who favor the LEO side are saying that the police have to make an instant decision to open fire on Diotaito for their saftey, yet the suspect doesn't have more than that instant to recognize what he is looking at, understand that they are indeed police, drop his weapon, and surrender. Pulling a trigger on sight of a weapon or what is suspected to be a weapon (as pointed out above) is a much faster process than properly identifying a police officer wearing "tactical", read black gear, in what is most likely, a darkened room when the identifier is in a groggy state of mind. That is, of course, part of the purpose of an early morning raid, isn't it?

I realize that someone went through all the dangers of alternative methods of arresting him. However, as DMF pointed out, they had a search warrant, not an arrest warrant. Why not wait until he leaves to go to work, serve the search warrant in a house that is now devoid of a known armed subject (there could be others, but we have lessened the odds and if the house was under survelliance, they probably know with a degree of certainty who else is in there), and have a couple marked cars blockade him over on the side of the road if he needs to be arrested as well? The presumtion seems to be that LEOs can plan an elaborate breach but can't figure out how to use 4 or five marked cars with lights to blockade a single car on a road? A road that the police can have complete control over and control traffic on minutes before the suspect reaches the "ambush" point...

At least if you blockade him with marked cars, he will instantly know he is being stopped by police and has a chance to prove that his intentions are not to hurt the officers. Is it not an ideal soultion, of course not, but it does offer the suspect a chance to identify the officers and the officers have a relative degree of saftey by virtue of being inside a cage that protect them and limits the suspects ability to employ some of his weapons. It is much harder to manuever a car in a curbed street than it is a gun inside a familiar house.

There is no doubt that the entry method used is an asset to the police because it gives them many advantages over people who would want to harm them. However, it poses a very real risk to everyday people who believe that their castle is their home and choose defense over submission just in case that knocking at the door isn't benign. I certaintly don't want to be caught with a shotgun in my hands when the door comes down in front of the police but I certainly don't want to be caught without one if the door comes down in front of a home invader. Both sides are in a difficult position and unwilling to look at alternatives for whatever reason.

The Real Hawkeye
August 7, 2005, 08:43 PM
Ouch! Double Naught, that smarts. :rolleyes: Give a guy a break. I didn't say you weren't too bright. I gave two options. That was just one.

DMF
August 7, 2005, 09:20 PM
As I said, it's not relevant to whether the search was justified or not, but at least it should put to rest some of the BS ranting about whether or not drugs were found:
There was violence. And, according to a copy of the search warrant reviewed by the South Florida Sun-Sentinel, police did find drugs. . .

. . . An inventory of items seized from the home listed "cannabis" and "drug paraphernalia," as well as . . .http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/broward/sfl-cswat07aug07,0,2537784.story?coll=sfla-news-broward

BostonGeorge
August 7, 2005, 09:34 PM
So he lost his life over some pot, that makes me feel alot better :rolleyes:

DMF
August 7, 2005, 09:47 PM
So he lost his life over some pot, that makes me feel alot better :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: One more time, he did NOT lose his life over any drugs. He lost his life because he presented a threat of serious bodily injury or death, and lethal force was used to stop the threat.

The Real Hawkeye
August 7, 2005, 09:51 PM
One more time, he did NOT lose his life over any drugs. He lost his life because he presented a threat of serious bodily injury or death, and lethal force was used to stop the threat.DMF, take your blinders off, man. The SWAT team was sent in knowing this guy was a security conscious person who would almost certainly respond with a weapon in his hand, as you or I would under similar circumstances. This was a set up for his almost certain execution, and over what? Some pot. Dude ... not cool!

BostonGeorge
August 7, 2005, 09:51 PM
One more time, he did NOT lose his life over any drugs. He lost his life because he presented a threat of serious bodily injury or death, and lethal force was used to stop the threat.

And that's a fact? It seems if he had shot first the same argument could be used in his defense. Basically the point I was trying to make was that his death was a direct result of the WoSD, therefore, he died over a little plant matter.

Derek Zeanah
August 7, 2005, 10:05 PM
I guess my issue is this:

I understand that procedure was probably followed in the execution of a warrant that was sworn out because the magistrate had been shown probable cause that the law was being broken by this guy at his residence. In execution of the warrant, a member of the entry team identified him as a threat and acted to eliminate the threat to the entry team members.

All that's been made really, really clear.

When all is said and done though, this guy shouldn't have died over this. Saying "he had possession of prohibited substances" isn't going to smoothe this one over, either, because this could have gone down the same way even if our CCW holder was completely clean.

Cops can get a warrant based on a "confidential informant," choose to go in at a time that greatly increases the odds that there'll be a lethal confrontation, and wash their hands of it once the homeowner is dead. "We followed all the rules -- not our fault. We had reason to believe something illegal was going on, and he would be alive today if he hadn't presented a threat to the entry team..."

This was preventable.

It wasn't prevented.

Having cops I respect parrot the "this is procedure -- this is how the world works" line makes me very, very sad.

I didn't think that I'd have to make the argument that no-one should have died here.

This thing was mismanaged. If procedures are set up such that this is likely, or even happens occasionally, then they need to be revisited. If the dude who was in charge of this isn't even disciplined over it, then justice isn't being done.

------------------

Here's a selfish reason to dislike this trend: I'm a CCW holder, though I rarely carry. I do, however, always arm myself when something around the house doesn't seem right.

My wife is a doctor. One of her competitors in town is known to abuse every system he can in order to get advantage/take out grudges/etc. Old boy could accuse my wife of illegally prescribing schedule II drugs in order to get more business, and this could be me.

Not likely, but the fact that it's possible is distressing.

I should also note that these sorts of cases are the reason I have a carbine next to the bed, in addition to the requisite sidearm. If a mistake's gonna be made, I want to be on the side that gets to fret over resolving the issue in court, thanks, even if I blow my eardrums out in the process.

:(

DMF
August 7, 2005, 10:15 PM
This was a set up for his almost certain execution . . . That's your warped view of it, but far from an objective fact. While I haven't addressed it on this thread, others have, and I have addressed it on other threads: These tactics to include times are used to MINIMIZE the chance of violence TO ALL PARTIES (cops, suspects, and innocent third parties). I know you refuse to believe that, but it's true. I don't know any cops that want a warrant service to result in a shooting, and I would refuse to do warrants with anyone that did. They would be UNSAFE to EVERYONE.

Every single briefing for warrant service I have been on the number one goal is to minimize the chance for violence. We prepare for what happens if things go bad, but we do our best to minimize the possibility of that happening. However, the only way to 100% guarantee that nothing bad will happen during a law enforcement operation, is to never conduct any type of LE operation. Sorry, but that would lead to anarchy.

I don't know why I try to explain this, because while you think that the vast majority of CCW holders are great people merely because their prints were run through the computer and they came back without a record, at the same time you wish to believe the vast majority of cops, who went through rigorous screening to get hired, lots of rigorous screening/training at their academies, and then more screening/training during FTO/probation are sitting around twisting their mustaches and hatching plans to "set up" suspects for "almost certain execution." Your logic is not based on fact or reason, but rather a blind hatred for law enforcement. Not only is it illogical, it's downright disgusting.

vrwc
August 7, 2005, 10:29 PM
Look I will say this before anyone accuses me of being a cop basher. I was a deputy sheriff for 2 years and spent 4 years in the USMC. No person's saftey is more important that my family, and using most of the LEO's posts here IF someone presents a reasonable threat of bodily harm any person regardless of their employer has a right to use force up to an including deadly force. I am not talking about USC or Insert your state revised statute Self Defense is a God given right. So using the very same logic and tactics if I am awakend and see several armed men I have a split second to react and most likely due to training I will fire to manuver and if it is the SWAT team with the wrong address I will die and most likley some of them will, if they were home invaders they most likely will disengage. This split second discision is one no homeower should ever have to make. Time is on the LEO's side yeah if you do only low speed high drag searches some guys may get away that time but I am more than happy to see 100 scum go free rather than one innocent executed via entry team.

Of course someone who you know is armed is most likely going to go to the door armed when they are not expecting visitiors

This is why these types of raids are so dangerous for all parties involved, My opinion is that there are some extremely rare situations where a dynamic entry would be ok in law enforcment but gathering evedince is sure not one in my book. I mean if officer saftey is the primary goal in these raids it would be a factual statement to say that using frags instead of flash bangs would be safer for the officers. There is a big difference (or at least there is supposed to be) from killing OPFOR on the battlefield and civilian law enforcement.

JohnKSa
August 7, 2005, 10:34 PM
Every single warrant I've been on we had a plan to force entry. However, a rough estimate would be we've forced entry less than 10-15% of the time.Are you saying that "having a plan to force entry" is the equivalent to "arriving at a location with a breaching team"? Or are you simply answering a different question from the one I asked. I can't really tell from the way things are worded here.

The Real Hawkeye
August 7, 2005, 10:41 PM
My opinion is that there are some extremely rare situations where a dynamic entry would be ok in law enforcment.Absolutely, such as the case of an armed robber who is chased into a home. In that case, by all means, bring in SWAT and blast away. But there are not too many situations short of this which would justify putting a SUSPECT, who is presumed innocent in the eyes of the law (Does that actually mean anything to you police officers on this board, or is it just an empty phrase to you?), in such almost certain harm's way.

Art Eatman
August 7, 2005, 10:41 PM
Lordy!

Go start a thread in Strategy & Tactics and discuss the whole deal of dynamic entry and all that. NOT here in this misbegotten thread!

:(, Art

vrwc
August 7, 2005, 10:43 PM
Thursday September 14 10:50 PM ET
SWAT Team Kills 11-Year-Old Boy

By CHRISTINE HANLEY, Associated Press Writer

MODESTO, Calif. (AP) - Authorities said a veteran SWAT team member with a
``star record'' accidentally shot and killed an 11-year-old boy during a
drug raid at his parents' home.

Alberto Sepulveda, a seventh-grader, was shot in the back Wednesday when an
officer accidentally fired his shotgun, Police Chief Roy Wasden said.
Alberto died on the floor of his bedroom.

``From the preliminary investigation, all indications so far is that the
shooting was accidental,'' Wasden said Thursday.

David Hawn, a 21-year department veteran and a SWAT team member for more
than 18 years, was placed on paid leave pending an investigation.

The boy's father, Moises Sepulveda, was arrested and booked on charges of
methamphetamine trafficking. The boy's mother and two young siblings were
also home during the raid.

The Drug Enforcement Agency said the raid had been part of a nine-month
investigation into methamphetamine trafficking and that 14 people had been
arrested Wednesday during separate raids.

Mike Van Winkle, a spokesman for the state Department of Justice, which has
500 drug agents and investigators, said no veterans he spoke with could
recall any other accidental shooting of children
during previous drug raids.

Last year, Hawn was cleared of wrongdoing for misfiring his gun into a
suspect who had already killed himself during a SWAT raid. An internal
investigation concluded an attacking pitbull brushed the
muzzle of Hawn's gun as he and other officers were checking the suspect.

``He has a star record,'' his chief said.

Moises Sepulveda Jr., 14, was on the top bunk bed above his brother when
the SWAT team banged on the door. He said he does not know if his brother
was awake when he left the room.

``My father said to stay calm. Then the front door blew open and they threw
out one of those smoke bombs,'' the teen-ager said, pointing to the brown
scorch mark left on the living room floor by the
canister

``My dad was cuffed and I was cuffed and one of them was stepping on my
neck, pointing a gun down at me and told me not to move,'' he said. ``I
heard another blast and thought it was another smoke
bomb.

``But it turns out they shot my brother.''

Sepulveda Jr., echoing the feelings of neighbors, relatives and other
community members, said he didn't understand why investigators did not try
to enter peacefully.

``We would have opened the door,'' he said. ``My dad isn't the kind of man
who would put his family in jeopardy.''
On March 25, of this year, 13 heavily armed Boston police wearing fatigue outfits smashed into the apartment of a 75-year-old retired minister, the Reverend Accelynne Williams. Williams ran into his bedroom when the raid began, but police smashed down the bedroom door, shoved Williams to the floor and handcuffed him. Williams may have had up to a dozen guns pointed at his head during the scuffle. Minutes later, Williams died of a heart attack. No drugs or guns were found in Williams' apartment. The police had carried out the raid based on a tip from an unidentified informant who said that there were guns and drugs in the building but did not give a specific apartment number. A policewoman simply took the informant's word, did a quick drive-by of the building, got a search warrant and then gave the go-ahead to her fellow officers to charge. An editorial in The Boston Globe later observed: "The Williams tragedy resulted, in part, from the `big score' mentality of the centralized Boston Police Drug Control Unit. Officers were pumped up to seize machine guns in addition to large quantities of cocaine and a `crazy amount of weed', in the words of the informant."
The Boston police commissioner apologized.
The press coverage made the event look like an isolated tragedy in the war on drugs. It was not.
No-knock police raids destroy Americans' right to privacy and safety. People's lives are being ruined or ended as a result of unsubstantiated assertions by anonymous government informants.
As early as 1603, English courts recognized that law officers were obliged to knock and announce their purpose before entering a citizen's home. Early American courts, such as the New York Supreme Court in 1813, adopted similar requirements.
Unfortunately, contemporary law enforcement practice does not reflect the patience or respect for individual rights that the founding fathers had.
Police do not keep statistics on warrants served at the wrong address or of the innocent bystanders killed or maimed in the war on drugs. But a search of newspaper files turns up a litany of law enforcement agencies gone berserk.
At two A.M. on January 25, 1993, police smashed down the door and rushed into the home of Manuel Ramirez, a retired golf course groundskeeper living in Stockton, California. Ramirez awoke, grabbed a pistol and shot and killed one policeman before other officers killed him. The police were raiding the house based on a tip that drugs were on the premises, but they found no drugs.
County Sheriff's Lieutenant Dan Lewis later tried to justify the raid's methods: "Our problem is that a lot of times we're dealing with drug dealers, and their thought processes are not always right from the start. That's when things get real dangerous for us."
Police told reporters the next day that, though the drug raid was a complete failure, they did find $8,500 in cash much of it in $50 and $100 bills, which the police asserted was consistent with drug dealers' cash-handling methods. Maria Ramirez, Manuel's daughter, said that the money was from the family business of selling jewlery at the flea markets. She has receipts to prove it.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On August 25, 1992, officials from the U.S. Customs Service and the DEA, along with local police, raided the San Diego home of businessman Donald Carlson, setting off a bomb in his backyard (to disorient Carlson), smashing through his front door and shooting him three times after he tried to defend himself with a gun. Police even shot Carlson in the back after he had given up his gun and was lying wounded on his bedroom floor. Amazingly, Carlson survived the raid.
The Customs Service mistakenly believed that there were four machine guns and a cache of narcotics in Carlson's home. Carlson related in congressional testimony in 1993 that even after agents failed to find any drugs, "No one offered me medical assistance while I lay on the floor of my bedroom. Event- ually, paramedics arrived and took me to the hospital. I was shackled and kept in custory under armed guard for several days at the hospital. During that time, I was aware of the hospital personnel referring to me as a criminal and of police officers and agents coming into my room."
The raid was based on a tip from a paid informant named Ron, who later told the Los Angeles Times, that he had never formally identified a specific house to be searched.
Customs officials had Carlson's house under surveillance for many hours before they launched the raid. The agents could easily have arrested Carlson when he arrived home at ten P.M. but instead watched and waited to attack until after midnight, when Carlson was asleep, in order to maximize the surprise. Although they had a search warrant based on the house being a drug storehouse, agents carried out the raid even after it became obvious that Carlson was living a normal life there.
The government finally admitted limited liability for Carlson's medical costs in March 1994, but the chief federal prosecutor, Alan Bersin, simultan- eously hailed the "courageous law enforcement efforts in the area of drug interdiction" involved in the case. "The tragedy for everyone involved is that no one acted other than in good faith," Bersin asserted. "We were deceived by our informant and must accept responsibility for that."
Bersin's statement implies that when federal agents launch a raid on some- one's home based solely on an allegation by a government informant, a "tragedy" occurs only when the informant deceives the agents. The Justice Department has indicated that no federal agents will be prosecuted for their actions before, during or after the raid.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In March 1992 a police SWAT team in Everett, Washington killed Robin Pratt in a no-knock raid while carrying out an arrest warrant for her husband. (Her husband was later released after the allegations on which the arrest warrant was based turned out to be false.) The Seattle Times summarized the raid:
"Instead of using an apartment key given to them, SWAT members threw a 50- pound battering ram through a sliding glass door that landed near the heads of Pratt's six-year-old daughter and five-year-old niece. As deputy Anthony Aston rounded the corner to the Pratt's bedroom, he encountered Robin Pratt. SWAT members were yelling, `GET DOWN,' and she started to crouch to her knees. She looked up at Aston and said, `Please don't hurt my children'. Aston had his gun pointed at her and fired, shooting her in the neck. According to attorney John Muenster, she was alive another one to two minutes but could not speak because her throat had been destroyed by the bullet. She was then handcuffed, lying facedown."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1991 Garland, Texas police dressed in black and wearing ski masks burst into a mobile home, waving guns. They kicked down the door of a bedroom that Kennety Baulch shared with his 17-month-old son. The police found Baulch holding an object in his hand. A policeman shot and killed Baulch. The object turned out to be an ashtray. The police say Baulch was advancing on them. The subsequent lawsuit contends he was shot in the BACK.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1989 Titusville, Florida policemen conducted a nighttime no-knock drug raid on the home of a 58-year-old painter, Charles DiGristine. The raid began as the police set off a concussion grenade and smashed through DiGristine's front door. When DiGristine's wife screamed, he hurried to his bedroom to get a pistol. A policeman dressed in dark clothing and a black mask crashed into his bedroom, gunfire was exchanged and the officer was killed. The local government prosecuted DiGristine for first-degree murder, but a jury acquitted him. (The police believed -- based on bogus information from an anonymous informant -- that the DiGristine home was a center for heavily armed drug dealers. The only drug they found in the raid was a small amount of marijuana owned by DiGristine's 16-year-old son.)
During the early afternoon of September 29, 1999, 13 SWAT team members stormed the upstairs apartment at 3738 high Street in Denver, Colorado, looking for drugs. They were executing a so-called "no-knock" raid, one of about 200 such warrants issued by the Denver PD last year. In such raids, the SWAT team simply breaks down the suspect's door, unannounced. Ismael Mena, 45, the occupant of the apartment, worked the night shift at the local Coca-Cola bottling plant and normally slept during the day.
After breaking open the front door and entering the apartment, the SWAT team officers found the door to Mena's room latched, and kicked it in. According to the officers, they found Mena, armed with an 8-shot .22 revolver, standing on his bed. Officers screamed "police!" and "drop the gun!" repeatedly, at which point, they attest, Mena started to put the gun down, asking, "policia?" At that moment, Sgt. Anthony Iacovetta emerged from behind a wall and moved to disarm Mena, at which point Mena once again raised the gun at police.
Colorado law allows police to use deadly force if they believe there is imminent danger to their lives; officer Kenneth Overman, standing at the top of the stairs facing Mena's bedroom door, opened fire, followed by officer Mark Haney. Mena allegedly fell back into a sitting position and, bleeding from head and chest wounds, lifted his gun again and fired at the police, precipitating more gunfire. Mena was hit by eight bullets in all.
No drugs were found on Mena's person or in his apartment. But the primary controversy in this case is not the conduct of the police during the raid, although protesters and commentators have certainly challenged that conduct. The issue, according to Denver officials, is that the day following the raid, SWAT team officers learned they had raided the wrong residence -- they should have gone next door, to 3742 High Street.
Officer Joseph Bini, the five-year veteran of the Denver police department who wrote and applied for the warrant to raid Mena's apartment, is currently facing a felonious charge of first-degree perjury for his alleged fabrication of evidence to obtain the no-knock warrant. He faces a sentence of two to six years.
Jefferson County District Attorney Dave Thomas, was appointed as special prosecutor on December 2nd, and spent two months investigating the Mena incident before officially charging Bini on February 5th. Thomas exculpated the SWAT officers, saying they were justified in killing Mena during the raid because he brandished a gun at them, but his investigation revealed that the warrant to raid Mena's house was fraudulently obtained. "At the heart of the whole incident is the search warrant," Thomas said. "It relates to an individual officer, Joseph Bini, making what we allege are false statements under oath, knowing they were false."
Thomas charges that Bini lied about the following things: That he received information that Mena's apartment was a crack house; that he saw (in person) his informant go to the house; that the informant went into the apartment with a suspect; and that drugs were bought at the apartment. Because Bini had not personally observed what he attested to in the warrant, Bini used the wrong address on the search warrant, apparently because he didn't know any better. His court date is Feb. 18.
"They felt extraordinarily threatened and felt very afraid of being shot," Thomas said in exonerating the SWAT officers. Denver Mayor Wellington Webb insisted that the SWAT team acted properly, and commented that, "if Mena did not have a gun or point it at police officers, he'd be alive today." Nonetheless, Mayor Webb ordered a review of the process by which search warrants are granted. He requested that Police Chief Tom Sanchez and Denver DA Bill Ritter study the criteria for issuing search warrants, the process by which requests for no-knock warrants are reviewed, and the frequency and effectiveness of no-knock warrants. The report is due in two months.

vrwc
August 7, 2005, 10:49 PM
I am not trying to discuss the finer points of dynamic entry, just provide some examples of how dangerous these types of raids are.


To clarify my position a simple question for all in the thread:
Is any evidence worth killing someone over?, do not confuse this with a barricaded subject, hostage, ect If so why

I am not trying to offend here I just want to know what people think.

The question phrased another way:
Should a search warrant be executed with offensive forcefull action (breach,CS,FlashBang)?

Jeff White
August 7, 2005, 10:50 PM
carebear said;
When I talked about contacting him at work I meant with a few uniforms and a detective at the same time the house is being cordoned off or at least monitored. He can't do diddly about hiding anything at that moment and he's outnumbered and has any major potential weapons by definition out of reach. Again, not a violent felon, just a guy with possession and maybe distribution; the odds are he doesn't have an AK in his desk.

If he doesn't want to ride along to witness the search and wants to make a call and you are afraid of a tipoff or something, you've got a valid warrant, have the on-site, badged and uniformed with squad cars team serve it without him there. That would make it, oh, ZERO risk of anyone getting shot resisting what the homeowner can and probably should reasonably believe to be a criminal home invasion at 6-ish in the morning.

The problem is that sometimes there is a time limit involved with the warrant. If I get a warrant to search for a perishable commodity like drugs (not that a dealer is worried about them expiring, but they don't like to sit on them) and then wait a few days, the odds are they will be gone and the suspect will have a civil case if I didn't have eyes on the property the entire time.

Save SWAT for the outlaw bikers and gang-bangers with proven or reasonably suspected actual violent armed felonies to their name.

I'm sure you're aware that there is violence in the drug trade. I think you're hung up on the fact that because the guy had a CCW that he must have only been dealing small quantities to his good friends and was really a good guy. The thing is we don't know that. All the fact that he possessed a CCW meant was that there was a very good likelyhood he would be armed when confronted. And plenty of people who are otherwise good, decent people have snapped and done things that got them into all kinds of trouble when confronted with an arrest for a minor violation. The SWAT team wasn't there to execute Diotaiuto, it was there to present him with overwhelming force to dissuade him from resisting. I'm not buying the mistaken identity thing. Show me one instance where a criminal gang dressed as SWAT officers to effect a home invasion to rip off a rival. Raid jackets and POLICE marked T shirts have been used. I have yet to hear of a gang wearing level IV armor and kevlar helmets and driving marked police vehicles.

TallPine said;
But ... when a raid is executed at a specific time of day when the raidee is expected to be sleepy and confused, but at the same time expect him/her/them to be able to clearly distinguish LEOs from BGs in a split second, then I think something is terribly wrong

At 6 am, 6:15 or 6:45 am, whichever it was, the sun is well up. A SWAT team would have been dressed in distinctive uniforms with large lettering identifying themselves. It would be hard for even the sleepiest person who had any situational awareness to confuse them for anyone else.

Cacique500 said;
My point is that just because he had a CCW the police found it justified to call in the SWAT team because they *expected* violence from a CCW holder. In my book, that line of logic is DEAD WRONG.

They used SWAT because there was a greater potential for violence because Diotaiuto was known to be armed. We don't have CCW in Illinois, but if we know that a subject is armed we treat the situation more carefully then if we don't know. It's just being cautious. Like it or not, if you are known to have firearms and you are the subject of a criminal investigation, you'll be treated more cautiously. You'd do the same if the shoe was on the other foot.

The Real Hawkeye said;

The reason they use the SWAT team is that they have one, and want to justify the cost of maintaining one, so they will tend to stretch the mission of the SWAT team to get it used more often.

And how is you know this? Are you on the police board or a commishioner in Sunrise, FL? Or are you just spewing generalities you picked up reading World Net Daily? :confused:

Also, these guys are super enthusiastic about their job. It's a rush for them, and they WANT to be used in the worst way. That cannot help but get them more opportunities than they really should have to apply their skills.

How many police tactical units have you been assigned to? What personal knowledge or experience do you have to back this statement up? The truth is, that SWAT trained officers aren't usually hot dogs. That type of personality doesn't last long in the business. People like you describe are too much of a liability to themselves, the public and the other officers.

Well, nasty or not, I will admit that you have a certain point as it relates to this specific circumstance, i.e., that it is reasonable for a cop to be more expectant of violent resistance if a judge has determined that the subject in question is more likely than not a criminal of some type. That would trump the CCW license as an indicator of the odds, but in general terms (such as a traffic stop) I think my point still holds up.

You're point doesn't hold up at all. All the possession of a CCW would indicate is that there is a greater likelyhood that the subject is armed. That's all, nothing more. It doesn't tell me what kind of day he had, it doesn't tell me that he didn't just murder his wife and her lover in a heated arguement and thinks I'm about to put him in prison for the rest of his life, it doesn't tell me that he didn't just get fired from his job three months short of retirement and this speeding ticket isn't the last thing he needs now, it doesn't tell me that he didn't just misdose his prescription and now he's suddenly paranoid. All a CCW permit tells me is that when that person applied, he had no criminal record and that he's more likely to be armed then another person who doesn't have a permit. I will make my decision on how to handle the contact based on all the information that is available to me, to include if he pulled over right away, if he's figiting around in the drivers seat, if he's visibly agitated when I speak to him....How many traffic stops have you made or how many other contacts with people have you conducted where you were going to cause them problems by your very presence?

Beerslurpy said;

I beleive the LEOs conducting the raid in the early AM (a time they chose) put him in a situation in which he would likely employ armed self defense. They knew this would be his reaction because they knew he was a CCW license holder. They then intentionally added SWAT to ensure that his armed self defense resulted in his death.

That sounds like intentional action that would knowingly result in his death to me. Which is murder.

Let's see my friend, first you advocate the murder of your own employees as a way to change public policy that you don't have patience to change at the ballot box. Then you state that if the police take any actions against a CCW holder, it's murder because they should know he would resist?

I'm not sure The High Road is where you belong online....

TallPine said;
The fact that the victim had a CCW permit means nothing either way to me, except that it appears that the police might have been more "trigger happy" because of that information.

How did you deduce that from the scant information that's in the articles?

Now, maybe the guy is(was) a total jerk and attempted to shoot LEOs after clearly identifying them as such - that would make this incident a lot different.

How do you know that he didn't? There are no details of the shooting itself in any of the articles.

But ... when a raid is executed at a specific time of day when the raidee is expected to be sleepy and confused, but at the same time expect him/her/them to be able to clearly distinguish LEOs from BGs in a split second, then I think something is terribly wrong :banghead:

Have you ever wondered why we have these big panels on our turnout gear that say POLICE in big white reflective leters? Only in the movies do the bad guys go to the time and expense to make themselves look like the local SWAT team in order to do a home invasion. That fact would make it more likely he would have recognized the SWAT officers as being who they claimed to be then he would have recognized detectives with raid jackets over street clothes.

For your (LEOs) sake and mine, I sincerely hope this sort of thing never happens at my home. I don't do dope, or anything else that I am aware of that would warrant (pun alert!) such a raid, so I would have to assume that anyone breaking down my door is a boogeyman. That and I am armed 100% of the time at home, not just at 6am or 10pm.

If you don't engage in any of those activities or share your residence with those people who do, then the chances of that happening are virtually nil. Have there been cases of mistaken addresses, yes. Do they happen often, compared to the numbers of warrants that are served nationwide in a year? No.

Deavis said;
Jeff did the SWAT officers gave him enough time to recognize their outfits and drop his weapon before they opened fire? Of course they didn't.

Again, I have to ask how you know this? Were you there? Please point me to the news article that gave the details of the actual shooting. I must have missed it.

Pulling a trigger on sight of a weapon or what is suspected to be a weapon (as pointed out above) is a much faster process than properly identifying a police officer wearing "tactical", read black, gear, what is most likely, a darkened room when you are in a groggy state of mind. That is, of course, part of the purpose of an early morning raid, isn't it?

First off, in this instance, the sun was well up by the time the raid was conducted. We are assuming that the officers were wearing black. But that may not always be the case. We wear OD green here.

We also don't know if the shooting occurred inside the house, in the door way or outside. So there is no way to guess at what the visiblity was. This article says:

http://www1.wsvn.com/news/articles/local/MIA4696/
[COLOR=Blue]According to authorities, the Sunrise police SWAT team moved in on the house located on NW 21st Court looking for drugs, but instead encountered a gun-wielding suspect.[COLOR]

You could guess that the shooting happened outside the house, but who really knows? I suspect it might have considering that in some of the photographs the yard is cordoned off. If that's the case it kind of blows away the theory that Diotaiuto didn't know what was coming down.

Why not wait until he leaves to go to work, serve the search warrant in a house that is now devoid of a known armed subject (there could be others, but we have lessened the odds and if the house was under survelliance, they probably know with a degree of certainty who else is in there), and have a couple marked cars blockade him over on the side of the road if he needs to be arrested as well? The presumtion seems to be that LEOs can plan an elaborate breach but can't figure out how to use 4 or five marked cars with lights to blockade a single car on a road? A road that the police can have complete control over and control traffic on minutes before the suspect reaches the "ambush" point...

You are assuming the police knew the suspect was home. This may or may not have been the case. We don't know what information was used to aplly for the warrant, so we don't know why they planned it the way they did.

Jeff

beerslurpy
August 7, 2005, 11:05 PM
Jeff, its not the police's home, its the victim's home. He has a right to defend it, especially against armed intruders in the early hours. The cops who attacked and then shot him on his own property are murderers. If he had shot them, it wouldnt be murder.

The reverse would be true if he had come to their houses, kicked in the door and then shot them. If they had shot him in this situation, it wouldnt be murder either.

It is really that simple. Everything else is just smokescreen. Even the drug search warrant is smokescreen. There are a million other ways to secure the searching of someone's residence without SWAT ambushing them when they are snoozing in the early AM.

The Real Hawkeye
August 7, 2005, 11:10 PM
And how is you know this? Are you on the police board or a commishioner in Sunrise, FL? Or are you just spewing generalities you picked up reading World Net Daily?Unless I provide a citation, include a quotation, or assert that I have had personal experiences X,Y and Z, you can safely assume that my assertions are expressions of my reasoned opinion, based on what I believe to be credible information.

insidious_calm
August 7, 2005, 11:15 PM
It's why I avoid these threads. The cops are always right blah blah. This is a prime example of why No-Knocks should be banned for all but matters of national security. Here is an example of one that went the other way.

Suspect aquitted of murdering police officer (http://cjonline.com/stories/072499/com_shivelycase.shtml)


I've spoken many times about the corruption in my local LE community. This little gem is an example of why...

While no-knock entries are legal in some cases -- such as where the threat of weapons or possible destruction of drug evidence is a factor -- the court said the supervising officer of the raid testified all the search warrants executed by his officers were conducted in a no-knock manner.

As for the line that the warrant listed 'canibis' as having been seized, well around here that's a no brainer. It's well known that the locals carry all kinds of contraband to throw down. This situation was guarenteed to turn up something whether it existed or not. If for no other reason than to CYA. Heck 5 leo's, FIVE, in the last 2 years alone have be fired for missing guns, drugs, and money from the evidence room here. It's not that there aren't ANY good cops here. Just a lot of bad ones. As the police chief said of the most recent firing, "I'm getting tired of surprises". I also laugh when people say "then get the feds to investigate". Well, they've been asked, so far they haven't. But we might as well ask DB Cooper to investigate bank fraud.

It's also worthy to note that many on here keep saying "elect people who will change the rules" blah blah. Well there is one fact that you can't argue and that is that the decision to serve a no-knock is ultimately the LEO's. They request it initially and try to justify that request, and then execute it. The police are the ones pushing for no-knocks, nobody else. That BS won't float here, sell it somewhere else.

In the link I posted I was pleased to see that at least 12 other people got it. If you serve a no-knock warrant and get killed it's your own fault. While tragic, the end result is that a police officer died, a man with a wife and children, because of police desire to play rambo and stop TWO OUNCES of pot from being destroyed. :barf:

And to those who thought that an earlier poster was advocating shooting police; I think you're mistaken. I think it's more an acknowledgement of where we're headed. Right, wrong, or indifferent, this type of thing will eventually lead to all out war between police and civillians. Any bets on who wins?


I.C.

The Real Hawkeye
August 7, 2005, 11:15 PM
I would like to ask DMF, and the other police officers on this board, to honestly tell us how they would react if someone smashed in the front door of their family home when they were sleeping in the early morning hours. Would you have had a gun in your hand when you went to investigate? In which case, would it be right to dismiss the shooting of you as a justified shooting?

beerslurpy
August 7, 2005, 11:18 PM
Have you ever wondered why we have these big panels on our turnout gear that say POLICE in big white reflective leters?

Funny, I can buy those or even make my own in 10 minutes.

Even assuming you cant buy something that has POLICE printed on it, is the buying of white paint somehow restricted? Somehow I doubt I will have difficulty faking the magic symbols that identify someone as police. I can buy Level IIIA soft armor and trauma plates online as well. Crisat if youre willing to spend a little more. Ditto Helmets of every variety. All of this is easily available. I can be a fully kitted out SWAT guy in no time at all or at least look 99 percent of the part.

As a law abiding citizen, my only encounters with the police (they got called by the telephone company because their 911 system was broken) have been "ding dong" and then they wait out front until I answer. They had a police cruiser out front, and easily recognizable uniforms with little badges. You would have to be retarded to not recognize they were cops. They were polite and behaved like ordinary human beings.

If those same cops were to ring the doorbell and then hit the door down with a battering ram 10 seconds later while I'm finding my underwear, my first instinct would be to pick up a gun and kill whoever the intruders were. Not "I wonder if these are cops." Because cops dont ever behave that way except in the movies or on internet discussion boards. And I might get killed. There is a moral to this story and it had better not be "submit to armed intruders and you wont be hurt."

The Real Hawkeye
August 7, 2005, 11:27 PM
Have you ever wondered why we have these big panels on our turnout gear that say POLICE in big white reflective leters?Went to DC a couple of years ago. Every other street vender is selling all kinds of clothing that says anything you want on it. They have FBI in big letters, and DEA in big letters. POLICE in big letters, on all kinds of clothing. I bought a nice black baseball style hat that said FBI on it. Stopped wearing it fast, though, because wherever I went, people cleared a path for me. Not used to that. Gave me a queasy feeling. Now it sits in my closet.

F4GIB
August 7, 2005, 11:27 PM
They were serving a search warrant not an arrest warrant. The information they had said the drugs, money and book keeping records were at his home,

Then why do it when he was home?

Why do it at 6:00 AM when he's likely to be sleepy and not in any condition to make a good judgement (knowing he could be armed)?

Because it's more convenient for the officers.

(1) If they find anything, they can arrest him (and not have to try and catch him at work or on the road) and they can proceed to search the rest of the house "incident to an arrest" (probably broadening the scope of their authorized searching).

(2) They believe that catching the occupants while "groggy and unalert" is safer for the officers (but, as this case shows, not necessarily for the less valuable civilians involved).

But, what really sets us civilians off is this fact:
I can't think of any simple [MJ] possession charge that [carries] a capital penalty. Ergo, perhaps in such cases it would not be unreasonable to try [to] avoid using enforcement techniques which make it MORE "probable" that somebody might DIE in the service of the warrant.

I've never seen a speck of evidence that "dynamic entries" are safer for the civilians involved. There seems to be lots of instances where they have proved to be unreasonably dangerous to innocent 11-year olds, 87-year olds, and sleepy occupants.

vrwc
August 7, 2005, 11:40 PM
No one wants to answer my question?
In what cases should the police execute a SEARCH warrant prepared for offensive force and why?

Art Eatman
August 7, 2005, 11:43 PM
See Post #155.

Art

jefnvk
August 7, 2005, 11:43 PM
As a cop, you should know that intent is not required for murder.

Well, I am not a cop. To me, throwing around the word 'murder' implies that they planned this out, and went in with the intent of killing him. I am not a lawyer, don't know the legal definition of murder, but that is what common usage tells me it means. It would have been more appropriate, in my mind, to use something like manslaughter.

It's why I avoid these threads. The cops are always right blah blah. This is a prime example of why No-Knocks should be banned for all but matters of national security.

Yeah, and on the other side, 'The guy with the CCW is always right', 'The police are JBT's', 'The guy's rights were violated by the man', etc.

And why should they be allowed for national security matters, if not for other matters?

If you enjoyed reading about "CCW Holder Killed In Warrant Raid" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!