Compare this case with that in Sunrise, Florida


PDA






F4GIB
August 19, 2005, 12:50 AM
The facts of this case are almost the same as that of the CCW holder killed in the police raid in Sunrise, Florida last week. But not the result.

State v. Housley
322 N.W.2d 746
Minnsota Supreme Court
Aug 13, 1982.

>>>>> The police, who were in the course of investigating several burglaries, obtained a warrant to search the defendant's home

Riley Housley ... was 23 years old at the time of the shooting incident. Housley was a high school graduate and a construction worker. He stood 6'3" tall, weighed 165 pounds, and was extremely nearsighted. His uncorrected vision in his right eye was 20-400 and his left eye tested at 20-300.

Housley had lived at 2807 Pillsbury with his fiancee, Denise Nelson, since April of 1979. Housley had no criminal record.
*** The defendant testified he was robbed and beaten in his home on Pillsbury in July of 1979. Housley testified that a man burst through the door and struck him in the head with a crowbar. Another man appeared in the doorway and yelled, "Cops!" Riley Housley, Denise Nelson and a friend were then robbed while the man who had appeared in the doorway pointed a shotgun at them. The prosecution stipulated that on July 18, 1979, at five minutes after midnight, a report was received by the Minneapolis Police Department indicating a robbery of a dwelling at 2807 Pillsbury Avenue South, the victim listed as Riley B. Housley, III.

Housley testified that this incident caused him to become extremely frightened and concerned. In addition to adding security locks to the premises, the day after the July 1979 robbery he went with Denise Nelson to purchase a handgun. *** His purpose was to acquire a gun that would stop somebody, but not necessarily kill them. *** Housley had never had guns in his home before the July 1979 robbery. He and Denise subsequently took target practice with the handgun and Housley became familiar with its operation. The gun was usually kept in the bedroom.

Housley testified that during the early morning hours of December 13, 1979, the day of the shooting, he was drinking beer at a friend's home. Housley did not get home until 6 a. m. He stripped to his underwear and a T-shirt and then fell asleep on the couch in the living room with one of the pillows over his head. *** She testified that Housley is an extremely sound sleeper and that it requires great effort to arouse him when he is asleep. Defendant testified that he was later awakened by a thud or a crash which sounded as if it came from the kitchen. He testified that he then heard the sound of glass being "crunched" in the kitchen. Housley stated that he was "terrified", thinking that someone had broken into the house and that he was being robbed again. Housley never used the back door of the house, nor did his housemate, Ms. Nelson. Housley testified that he could not find his glasses in the area of the couch, but discovered his handgun in the back of a cushion, where it was kept from time to time. Housley testified that he stood up, cocked the automatic pistol, and looked through the dining room at the doorway to the kitchen. There he saw a "large bushy figure kind of partially silhouetted in the light just about to enter the dining room," some 15 to 20 feet away. Housley testified that the man, who "filled the doorway", appeared to have a gun in his hand, and started to make a jerking motion with his left hand.

Housley testified that he thought the intruder was about to fire upon him so he just "shot toward him." Housley denied seeing anyone else present in the kitchen. Housley thought he fired two or three shots. Sergeant Ronald Adler testified that an automatic weapon such as that used by the defendant could fire four or five rounds "in a second or so." When Housley saw the figure in the doorway fall to his knees he picked up the phone in the dining room and ran into the bathroom. There he called the Minneapolis Police Department for help.

[b]The Supreme Court reversed Housley's conviction on the basis of his valid self-defense plea. <<<<<

Comparing the two cases, it appears that the presence of a SWAT team does make a difference.

It increases the odds that the civilian gets killed and therefore no one hears his testimony. No testimony, no self-defense claim, no civil lawsuit, no damage to the department's reputation, no money damages, etc.

If you enjoyed reading about "Compare this case with that in Sunrise, Florida" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
DMF
August 19, 2005, 12:58 AM
Gee F4GIB, for a guy so hot on getting stats last week, now you want your argument to be about comparing only two incidents, which certainly is not a valid statistical analysis. Which is it? Do you need stats, or just two seemingly similar cases ( :rolleyes: ) with different results? As I said on that other forum, you are just unwilling to let go of your pet gripe, despite the fact I provided some stats that strongly indicated "SWAT" teams make it less likely that suspects will be injured.

Also, I didn't notice anything in what you posted that would let us know if that was or was not a SWAT team serving a warrant on Housley.

Click Here to See What DMF is talking about! (http://glocktalk.com/showthread.php?postid=4708273&highlight=SRT#post4708273)

Joejojoba111
August 19, 2005, 03:31 AM
It's still relevant and timely though.

F4GIB
August 19, 2005, 11:25 AM
DMF posted: Also, I didn't notice anything in what you posted that would let us know if that was or was not a SWAT team serving a warrant on Housley.

There was no use of a SWAT team in Housley. See 322 N.W.2d 746, 747 (1982). That's the point. Housley was alive to testify as to his side of the story.

The underlying rationale for "dynamic entry" is that the suspect (here a total non-criminal) is stunned into inaction. When that occurs, as DMF's statistics correctly indicate, the suspect takes no action and is immediately subdued without shots being fired.

The problem however, emphasized by the Sunrise case, the Housley case, and others discussed here in recent years, is that such tactics exacerbate the risk to the civilian IF the civilian takes action rather than just being stunned into immobility.

The question is then raised (by me, if necessary) as to whether such tactics should be socially acceptable when the gain sought is a minor amount of MJ or an inexpensive stolen stereo vs. the risk (however infrequent) of serious injury or death to the civilians involved (who are often completely innocent of anything). The question is whether the magnitude of the risk to civilians outweights the gain sought. In run-of-the-mill search warrant cases, I think it does. DMF doesn't.

DRZinn
August 19, 2005, 02:02 PM
Sergeant Ronald Adler testified that an automatic weapon such as that used by the defendant could fire four or five rounds "in a second or so."Really? What kind of handgun did he have, exactly?

Jeff White
August 19, 2005, 02:15 PM
F4GIB,
Do you have a link to that case? It might be interesting to read the whole opinion.

Jeff

rabbit
August 19, 2005, 02:41 PM
the presence of a SWAT team does make a difference.
It increases the odds that the civilian gets killed and therefore no one hears his testimony. No testimony, no self-defense claim, no civil lawsuit, no damage to the department's reputation, no money damages, etc.

I buy something from someone and unbeknownst to me it happens to be stolen. A month later I get my door kicked in by a swat team at the crack of dawn? So I come out of a dead sleep and there are strangers invading my house, I grab a weapon and BANG! I am dead. Justified shooting?

I have been reading a couple threads about this and I am shocked at how everyone just bends over and takes it when it comes to police acting like nazis. I know there will be several replies to this post with "well, that is rare for that to happen" and "a dynamic entry scenario statistically is...."

You people better wake up. I can protect myself from the bad guys- it is the police I worry about. In my opinion most of them are schoolyard bullies or kids who got bullied looking for payback.

Sindawe
August 19, 2005, 02:48 PM
Welcome rabbit. :)I have been reading a couple threads about this and I am shocked at how everyone just bends over and takes it when it comes to police acting like nazis. I think that a good portion of us who will not bend over and take have said our piece in these debates already. But I'll state it again, just for the record.

If the agents of the the law have reason to believe they need to search my home, get a warrant, come to the door and present warrant for inspection/verification that you really ARE the cops. I'll abide by the warrant and any further issues we'll fight out in court. Thats the way our society is supposed to run.

Door kickers, on the other hand, are to be considered hostile boarders, and will be delt with as such. I may die as a result, but I die FREE!

F4GIB
August 19, 2005, 02:50 PM
Doc Zinn posted Really? What kind of handgun did he have, exactly?
A small calibre SEMI-automatic, IIRC.

[Jeff White[/i] posted Do you have a link to that case?
No. I got it from WESTLAW. It's too old to be available through the Minnesota Courts' free web page. If you have WESTLAW or LEXIS you can find it from the citation.

rabbit
August 19, 2005, 03:13 PM
If the agents of the the law have reason to believe they need to search my home, get a warrant, come to the door and present warrant for inspection/verification that you really ARE the cops. I'll abide by the warrant and any further issues we'll fight out in court. Thats the way our society is supposed to run.
Door kickers, on the other hand, are to be considered hostile boarders, and will be delt with as such. I may die as a result, but I die FREE!

Then you will die. They can kick in your door and violently enter your home and if you resist with any kind of weapon you will be shot. That's the way it is. I think that is the way it has always been, and worse, except for certain privelaged segments of the population.

buzz_knox
August 19, 2005, 03:19 PM
I think that is the way it has always been, and worse, except for certain privelaged segments of the population.

Privileged segments don't get no-knock warrants.

JohnBT
August 19, 2005, 07:49 PM
"I think that is the way it has always been"

When I was a kid nobody locked their doors, unless maybe they lived in the big city. Seriously.

John

rabbit
August 19, 2005, 08:13 PM
What's your point?

50 Freak
August 19, 2005, 08:36 PM
Then you will die. They can kick in your door and violently enter your home and if you resist with any kind of weapon you will be shot. That's the way it is. I think that is the way it has always been, and worse, except for certain privelaged segments of the population.

Using the scenario of a wrong address no knock. Your probably right I would probably die, but not before I take a few swat officers with me. Don't think their body armor will stop the 308 rounds from the FAL that I keep for self defense. It's a no win situation for both the LEOs and me (except for my wife after she sues the police dept for wrongful manslaughter).


Rabbit, you'll find that most of the members here are LE's or gun nuts (GUN NUTS). Meaning they are all pretty damn profficent with their weapons. I myself probably go through 10,000 rounds of 308 a year. If there was a gun battle between most of us and some guy dressed in black kicking in our door in the middle of the night. People are going to get hurt on both sides. That's why these no knocks are a really bad idea.

rabbit
August 19, 2005, 10:09 PM
Unfortunately, with the "Meth War" picking up steam in the midwest and everywhere else (and departments clamoring for some of those sweet federal funds) there may be some no knocks gone wrong in the near future. I dont think anybody who likes guns is going to like the effects. Entry teams getting zapped by middle-aged guys with rifles might finally get everyones guns taken away. Might have to go to a local "armory" to check your sporting purpose only guns out and check them back in by dark. It could happen; nothing, and I mean nothing surprises me anymore.

F4GIB
August 20, 2005, 03:20 PM
.

DRZinn
August 20, 2005, 09:22 PM
Doc Zinn posted
Quote:
Really? What kind of handgun did he have, exactly?

A small calibre SEMI-automatic, IIRC.
'Magine that.

Hawkmoon
August 21, 2005, 01:17 PM
I couldn't help noticing that the way the article was written, it appears the thief TOLD the police that the guy to whom he sold the stolen item (Riley) didn't know it was stolen.

So how could any competent police agency justify a dynamic entry to search for something the resident didn't even know was stolen? More frightening, how could a judge APPROVE a dynamic entry warrant in the absence of evidence the servee knowingly bought stolen merchandise? (In fact, in the presence of evidence that he did NOT knowingly purchase stolen goods ... although the police may have conveniently omitted that little factoid from thei application for a warrant.)

So the bottom line here appears to be that, because the police elected to smash in the door rather than just knock at noon and ask, "By the way, Sir, did you recently happen to purchase a radio from John Doe?" they got one of their officers shot.

Great work.

I am firmly in the contingent that believes there is zero justification for a dynamic entry warrant, and especially a no-knock warrant. Not unless and until the "authorities" can guarantee that there is ZERO possibility of breaking down the wrong door, and ZERO possibility that they might shoot an innocent non-participant.

GunGoBoom
August 21, 2005, 02:09 PM
it appears that the presence of a SWAT team does make a difference.

It increases the odds that the civilian gets killed and therefore no one hears his testimony. No testimony, no self-defense claim, no civil lawsuit, no damage to the department's reputation, no money damages, etc.

You hit the nail on the head - dead men don't talk, so the police can (and do) easily make up stuff about identifying themselves properly, etc., and no one can refute them. And, no one hears the other side of the story, how the person was indeed frightened for their lives. In that light, it makes a lot of sense to LEOs to do it right and just invade and kill anyone who looks remotely threatening.

And let's call a spade a spade - a dynamic entry is more accurately called a "no-knock and probably-not-announce" raid, where the resident is taken by surprise and thus has good reason to be in fear for his life from apparent robbers/home invaders.

If you enjoyed reading about "Compare this case with that in Sunrise, Florida" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!