Revolting! Man in Seattle gets Swat team sent on him for having 3 handguns


PDA






razorburn
August 17, 2006, 02:24 AM
That's it. Seriously. I just saw this on fox news. Apparently, he got a swat team sicced on him for no reason, just for having guns! He committed no crime. He threatened nobody. He just went into his apartment and didn't want to come out! His father then called the police and told them his son was in his apartment with access to 3 (legal) handguns, and they sent a swat team armed with rifles, shut down several streets, yellow tape, a negotiator the whole works. They had a negotiator (negotiate what? Negotiate to unlock his door?), and in the end, charged him with nothing because he did nothing wrong. I'm trying to find further info on this right now, anybody else know anything? If all is as appears, this is one of the most ridiculous intrusions on a law abiding gun owner I've ever read of.

I was in Seattle just earlier today with a handgun on my person :rolleyes:. Amazing I didn't get kicked to the ground and the army sent in on me.

Edit-
Link found, will look for 1 that was as detailed as the news report. http://www.kirotv.com/news/9691723/detail.html

It gets me so incensed with their on-street interview. Matronly old women expressing shock and dismay on their face- "Its really shocking when you realize there's people with guns right in your neighborhood!" "It really hits you when you realize these things can happen right in your own town, I lived on the same floor with him!". My god, I had no idea how brainwashed some of my seattlelites are. It's appalling that anybody actually thinks like this. They're actually completely associating gun ownership=wrong and evil. They actually consider law abiding gun ownership to be like a crime on the scale of murder and rape!

If you enjoyed reading about "Revolting! Man in Seattle gets Swat team sent on him for having 3 handguns" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Eightball
August 17, 2006, 02:28 AM
Time to sue.:fire:

Jeff White
August 17, 2006, 02:36 AM
And just what did the man's father tell the police he did? Do you know? I seriously doubt they would even get a meter maid dispatched to respond if the father just called 911 and said "My son owns three legal handguns, he's not a criminal and he just went home for the night and locked the door."

Are you sure that the father didn't indicate something like his son was despondent and suicidal or had made threats to him or others in an argument?

I think there might be a bit more to the story......

Jeff

razorburn
August 17, 2006, 03:10 AM
The link to the brief kiro-7 report states that he argued with his father, then went into his apartment and refused to come out. His father phoned and reported that he had access to 3 hand guns in the apartment. This caused several streets to be shut down and a swat team dispatched to surround him.

Fox news broadcast reported that he threatened nobody with the handguns, and did not brandish them or threaten others. He was simply in his apartment with the guns and refusing to leave. Apparently he was then negotiated into going down.

I am going to try to find a more detailed report as fox news had broadcasted.

Lupinus
August 17, 2006, 03:14 AM
can we say overkill?

cassandrasdaddy
August 17, 2006, 03:20 AM
what can come of a police report
in va i got arrested and charged with contruction fraud based on a criminal complaint where i had not taken any money from the woman had no contract with her and my name is not antwhere in the criminal complaint. the wheels of justice did eventually set me free but even though the cops agreed something was wrong they were cuffing me. side note the best part of whole experience was how the sheriffs handled it.

Powderman
August 17, 2006, 04:12 AM
OK, so the bash fest has started. But first, let's read the original post:

1. He gets called in as a barricaded subject, who won't come out.

If that's all you have going in, would you just waltz up to the door with an ice cream cone?

2. A negotiator was called.

So what's bad about that?

3. He was talked into surrendering and released, as he had committed no crime.

Can someone tell me what is bad about this? Anyone?

MrZ
August 17, 2006, 04:18 AM
"And just what did the man's father tell the police he did? Do you know? I seriously doubt they would even get a meter maid dispatched to respond if the father just called 911 and said "My son owns three legal handguns, he's not a criminal and he just went home for the night and locked the door.""

Agree.

Whoa!!! Gotta run!!! There's a BLACK HELICOPTER flying around my house!!!!

Metapotent
August 17, 2006, 04:42 AM
I live in Seattle as well and I have had a funny experience...

I live on the 13th floor (literally) in my apartment complex and one day I was cleaning one of my rifles with my window and blinds open and a kid in an adjacent apartment across the street was playing with his toy guns and was pointing them at me, thinking I had a toy gun as well. His mother walks up to him to see what he is doing and spots me with a rifle in my hand.

She grabs her child by the hand and runs out of site of the window.

I think nothing of it until I get a call from the front office saying the cops were there and wanted to speak to me.

I take the elevator, reach the lobby to get handcuffed for "brandishing a weapons". I told the police I was simply expressing my 2nd amendment rights to own and CLEAN legally purchased weapons. Then I give permission to the police to check my apartment and there they found my rifle on a desk surrounded by cleaning products. They pressed no charges and I ended up showing the police my assortment of weapons that they were very impressed with.

http://www.gunandgame.com/forums/attachments/ar15-m16/4964d1155354402-picture-time-guns.jpg

strambo
August 17, 2006, 05:40 AM
. He gets called in as a barricaded subject, who won't come out.

If that's all you have going in, would you just waltz up to the door with an ice cream cone?
We need the police report to know what they were told as a reason for him being "barricaded". If no crime was committed, no warrant and no crime he is suspected of...then it wouldn't be possible for him to be a barricaded subject, just some guy who doesn't feel like talking to his idiot father.

I can believe you can call the police and say something vague like "I'm worried about my son, he's in the house and won't come out and he's got 3 guns...I don't know what he's gonna do." and get the response mentioned in the article even though no crime was alleged. The nanny-state is eager to protect you from yourself (maybe, if you are a threat to yourself...if not maybe they'll find some pot on the way in?)

Autolycus
August 17, 2006, 06:43 AM
Metapotent:

Is that your collection? I thought suppressors were illegal to put on a gun in WA? And are those airsoft MP5s?

LAK
August 17, 2006, 07:41 AM
Sheesh, I must be an "armed barricaded subject" everytime I shut the door for the night to turn in. If I "refuse to come out or open up" for someone in my family until I feel like it - is the local PD going to bring out the SQUASH team and negotiator?

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

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

ilbob
August 17, 2006, 08:34 AM
Can someone tell me what is bad about this? Anyone?

he had committed no crime.

under what bizarre theory of the constitution does someone who is not committing a crime and is not a threat to anyone get attacked by a SWAT team because of the unsupported allegations of a single person?

but I would be inclined to reserve judgment in some respects. this has the feel of someone coaching someone else just what to say to get this kind of response.

Sistema1927
August 17, 2006, 08:46 AM
Let's look at the other side to this:

Father calls local PD, complains that son had an argument with him, locked himself in his house, won't come out, won't talk with anyone, and dad thinks that he might be suicidal. PD tells him "nothing we can do, he hasn't committed any crime", and tells dad to have a nice day. Son blows his brains out. Dad gets attorney, and sues the department for not doing anything.

Looks like the police can't win, especially in this litigious society.

Rich K
August 17, 2006, 09:22 AM
Some "fathers" are simply idiots, walking talking rectums. They get irritated when they can't control their family from cradle to grave. Mine used to get po'd when I wouldn't talk to him for 2 weeks. After his abuse of my mother sisters and me, why should I? Sorry for the rant.

Erebus
August 17, 2006, 09:38 AM
How about sending 2 uniforms over to his house and knocking on the door?

Officer Jones "Everything ok here sir? We got a call from your father that you wouldn't answer the door for him."

Gunowner "Yep just mad at my Dad and don't want to talk to him."

Run his ID just to be sure he's not wanted, can legally posess the weapons and leave him alone. If he can legally own the guns then whether or not he has any is none of the cops concern at that point. Unless he comes to the door with one in his hand.

buzz_knox
August 17, 2006, 09:55 AM
Son blows his brains out. Dad gets attorney, and sues the department for not doing anything.

Looks like the police can't win, especially in this litigious society.


Police depts say that very thing quite often, and get sued. They also get sued when they listen to assaults over the phone and do nothing, or sit outside while actual crimes are ongoing and do nothing. The result is the same: they win. It's been made very clear in this "litigious" society that the police have no responsibility towards individuals unless they have both led that person to believe they will protect them and deprive the individual of some other means of protection.

progunner1957
August 17, 2006, 11:29 AM
I'll add Seattle to my growing list of places I'll never live due to antigun bigotry. Maybe I'll even have to add Washington state, even though it is rated as "D+" by the antigun bigots at the Brady Campaign.

ilbob
August 17, 2006, 11:32 AM
Looks like the police can't win, especially in this litigious society.

Thats just not true. I don't recall any cases ever where police have successfully been sued over a legitimate judgment call. Even a case where they have refused to send officers to investigate a report of an attempted murder in progress. Once in a blue moon a case is won over civil rights infractions, but something like this - never.

As liberty loving people, we ought to have a single standard by which we judge the actions of LE. That standard should be is it constitutional, and is it lawful.

ceetee
August 17, 2006, 11:44 AM
Can someone tell me what is bad about this? Anyone?

How many tax dollars were spent? How many crimes went uninvestigated because of the over-use of police personnel, responding to a complaint that could've been handled over the phone?

How much background information did the police obtain before calling out the troops?

For all we know, the son has a history of making threats, or has been seeing a mental health specialist. He may have just gotten some bad news, and his dad may be a good guy that honestly cares about his son. We just don't know enough facts to judge correctly.

If what we DO know is correct, though, I would be highly ticked off (were I a taxpayer there) of the total waste of funds. If I Were the son, I'd have a few choice words for my dad, too...

Raptor5191
August 17, 2006, 11:58 AM
Razorburn, SWAT does NOT hit houses for "no good reason" as a general rule. There is a REASON the police were called, and a REASON the patrol guys requested a call-up.

I ask many of you one thing: Why is it ALWAYS the fault of the police department or sheriff's office when you aren't happy about stuff? How about the legislators? Why not do something about them? Get pissed off at them...it is normally much better directed.

Think about it: Legislation LEGISLATES (makes law).

Law Enforcement ENFORCES what the LEGISLATURE deems law.

buzz_knox
August 17, 2006, 12:07 PM
Law Enforcement ENFORCES what the LEGISLATURE deems law.

The legislature doesn't control when SWAT is deployed in a particular circumstance. It only controls what is done in a broad stroke. Tactical decisions like these are and should be left to the department. That's why public pressure needs to be brought to bear to insure that such decisions are right and proper.

Lupinus
August 17, 2006, 12:21 PM
Can someone tell me what is bad about this? Anyone?
even if he was "barricaded" with guns what law is there agianst that? Unless he has a hostage or is reported to have a hostage or some such the police have no buisness bothering him. Last time I checked it was still legal to want people (even police when you aren't commiting a crime) to leave you the hell alone.

I own guns, so if my Uncle comes knocking on my door while I am sleeping and I say screw it roll over and go back to sleep I can fully expect to wake up agian to my door being kicked in by a swat team because my Uncle calls to police and says I own guns and am not answering the door?

If there were other circumstances, not showing up for work for a few days and no one on the face of the earth has heard from me and there is a funny smell of dead stuff coming from my house then they have a reason because it is no longer someone with guns that doesn't wanna come out it is a possible dead bloated rotting guy with guns. But not if the only thing the police have been told is "Man with guns has locked himself in his house and wont come out"

ilbob
August 17, 2006, 12:31 PM
Razorburn, SWAT does NOT hit houses for "no good reason" as a general rule. There is a REASON the police were called, and a REASON the patrol guys requested a call-up.
The reason may or may not have been good at the time the decision was made. The only thing we know after the fact is that it looks like major overkill. It is hard to know what triggered such a strong response to something that turned out to be nothing.
I ask many of you one thing: Why is it ALWAYS the fault of the police department or sheriff's office when you aren't happy about stuff? How about the legislators? Why not do something about them? Get pissed off at them...it is normally much better directed.

Think about it: Legislation LEGISLATES (makes law).

Law Enforcement ENFORCES what the LEGISLATURE deems law.
GOOD question. Why is it we let the politicians off the hook for these kind of things? Not just the legislature. I don't want the legislature micro-managing anything. But the mayor ought to be asking "what the heck were you people thinking?". It is his job to make sure city resources are used appropriately.

One of the biggest problems we have with LE these days is that it has gotten way too independent. It is like a watchdog. It needs to be kept under strict civilian control or it can (and sometimes does) turn on innocents.

Deanimator
August 17, 2006, 12:39 PM
I take the elevator, reach the lobby to get handcuffed for "brandishing a weapons". I told the police I was simply expressing my 2nd amendment rights to own and CLEAN legally purchased weapons. Then I give permission to the police to check my apartment and there they found my rifle on a desk surrounded by cleaning products. They pressed no charges and I ended up showing the police my assortment of weapons that they were very impressed with.

Years ago, I lived in a highrise apartment building. One day, the pipes behind my bedroom closet wall burst. The management company entered my apartment without my knowledge and fixed the leak. The closet happened to have a number of guns in it. They called the police. The police basically replied, "Yes, AND?" The cops later called and notified me. This was the same PD that I called several times on my domestic abuser upstairs neighbor. They eventually arrested him for assaulting a police officer. This is also the same department who, when the Metropark Rangers ignored my calls relayed by them, voluntarily walked a river bank with a friend and me to ensure that no crime had been committed.

I suppose that once I left Chicago for good, I've been lucky enough to live in towns with reasonably honest and competent police departments.

Kentak
August 17, 2006, 12:43 PM
The key to this is how the situation was presented to the police by the guy's father. Until we know *all* the facts about that, it's premature to do the "OMG, we're a police state!" call-to-arms. *sigh*

K

Tokugawa
August 17, 2006, 12:44 PM
It is truly amazing how the leftist mindset has taken over in Seattle. And in surrounding areas. The concept of "legal" gunownership is an oxymoron- "everybody" knows guns are used for "only one thing".
Most have never held or fired a weapon. Firearms are demonized day and night over and over. Every time a firearm is seen on the tube , it is in one of four contexts - criminal use, police use, war, or my favorite, as it is the most sneaky- the use as a recreation by the "bad guys", who are not overtly criminals, like the sleazy stockbroker who likes to shoot trap or some such.
Please don'nt write off the whole state, the eastern part is a different place altogether.

Raptor5191
August 17, 2006, 12:49 PM
illBob,

True. Tactical decisions are made onscene and not by politicians or legislature.

However, having been on the receiving end of the anti-police and biased media in the past I do know that if there is a chance to slant a story and make the police dept or sheriff's offc onscene look bad, they will, and that "pesky investigation" and the ridiculous "whole story" thing is merely an inconvenience to them.

I feel that none of us, even those of us who have done this stuff, have ANY right to bash the guys onscene unless you were there. There is no way to know all the facts without reading all associated reports.

Zundfolge
August 17, 2006, 12:50 PM
Son blows his brains out. Dad gets attorney, and sues the department for not doing anything.

Looks like the police can't win, especially in this litigious society.

See Gonzales Vs. Castle Rock (http://www.jpfo.org/alert20050321.htm) [Colorado]


nice try though :p

idahoemt
August 17, 2006, 02:15 PM
The link to the brief kiro-7 report states that he argued with his father, then went into his apartment and refused to come out.

FWIW, since it was a family member who called in and said they had been "arguing"(and we're not even sure that is the term used), per our protocol it would have been entered as a domestic dispute. Domestics are a priority one call and get toned. What's that mean? Lights and sirens, drive real fast and more than one unit responds. We always ask questions like "Does he/she have any access to weapons?" "Has anyone been drinking/doing drugs?" The responses are passed on to LE.

Unless someone is privy to the call made to the police we are just guessing at what was said that dictated the response.

tellner
August 17, 2006, 02:22 PM
Metapotent, you can get in trouble for posting pornographic pictures on this forum :p (Nice collection there)

Liberal Gun Nut
August 17, 2006, 02:47 PM
I thought about this last night. If they sent a "negotiator" over here, I would start negotiating! I like negotiating.

"Hi, this is Lt. ___, I am with ___ PD, and we would like to talk about you coming outside with no one getting hurt."

"Is this conversation being recorded?"

"Um, yes it is actually."

"Ok, I'm ready to negotiate."

"Good. We have you surrounded. You need to come out in a way that no one gets hurt. What can we do to make that happen?"

"Well, first of all, which entity are you representing, and are you in a position to enter into obligations on behalf of that entity?"

"I'm with ___ PD, and yes I certainly can."

"Good. Your demand is that I stop the productive work I am doing here and come outside. My demand is for a new Porsche to be delivered within 72 hours. If you agree to that I'm coming outside."

"Um, ok, sure. Come out with your hands on your head."

"Ok, if you want to see me walking outside my door with my hands on my head in exchange for a new Porsche, sounds like a deal to me!"

ilbob
August 17, 2006, 02:51 PM
Is any one in such a situation fool enough to believe the police will abide by anything they have negotiated?

Eightball
August 17, 2006, 03:00 PM
He was talked into surrendering and released, as he had committed no crime.

Can someone tell me what is bad about this? Anyone?Maybe the fact that he was Negotiated out of NOT DOING ANYTHING WRONG. Okay, he argued with dad, and went back home. He just happens to be a gun owner. How does that change the response of the PD?

"911? I just had an argument with my son"
"good for you"
"he owns 3 guns"
"we'll send backup immediately"

I mean no disrespect to LEOs, but this situation is just absurd, at least to me.

Kentak
August 17, 2006, 03:09 PM
If someone here found themselves in a similar situation as this guy--assuming you knew you had truly done nothing wrong--would not simply come out exactly as directed by the police and clear up the whole mess, please explain how you would act differently.

K

Lupinus
August 17, 2006, 03:21 PM
I would come out and clear it up because the other way is a bigger pain in the ass

but I shouldn't have to just because I happen to be a gun owner

Phetro
August 17, 2006, 03:21 PM
OK, so the bash fest has started. But first, let's read the original post:

1. He gets called in as a barricaded subject, who won't come out.

If that's all you have going in, would you just waltz up to the door with an ice cream cone?

2. A negotiator was called.

So what's bad about that?

3. He was talked into surrendering and released, as he had committed no crime.

Can someone tell me what is bad about this? Anyone?

Nothing wrong with it. Nothing at all. Let's call the cops on YOU for committing no crime whatsoever, and have them send a SWAT team to YOUR door, and talk YOU into surrendering. Since there's nothing wrong with what happened, you wouldn't mind going through that, right?

Phetro
August 17, 2006, 03:26 PM
"911? I just had an argument with my son"
"good for you"
"he owns 3 guns"
"we'll send backup immediately"

But apparently, from what a few people here are saying...that's okay. SWAT teams should apparently be allowed to harass people and storm their houses whenever they feel like having an exciting day.

And the people getting harassed shouldn't be the least bit bothered, and should not hesitate to obey. After all, if they have nothing to hide, they have nothing to be afraid of, right? See, a police state really isn't that bad at all.

Makes me positively sick how many people have so little self esteem. Yeah, I would act differently. If I did nothing wrong, and I'm sitting at home, I'll come out when I'm good and ready, and not before. Why should I obey the police state?

Sistema1927
August 17, 2006, 03:32 PM
How about sending 2 uniforms over to his house and knocking on the door?

Officer Jones "Everything ok here sir? We got a call from your father that you wouldn't answer the door for him."

Something similar got two veteran Albuquerque Police Officers killed one year ago tomorrow (August 18, 2005). Officers Richard Smith and Micheal King went to check on a man who had made disturbing calls to a local hospital, and were gunned down in front of the house with a .455 Webley revolver. Turns out that John Hyde had already killed three other people that day, but had not yet been connected to those crimes.

These were not rookie officers, both of them had returned to duty following retirement.

I sometimes think that we lose sight of events such as this when we discuss these types of topics on THR.

Sistema1927
August 17, 2006, 03:34 PM
Thats just not true. I don't recall any cases ever where police have successfully been sued over a legitimate judgment call. Even a case where they have refused to send officers to investigate a report of an attempted murder in progress. Once in a blue moon a case is won over civil rights infractions, but something like this - never.

Successful or not, these types of suits are brought to court, and end up costing police departments in time, money and manpower. As a wise man once told me: if it goes to court, you have already lost.

buzz_knox
August 17, 2006, 03:41 PM
I feel that none of us, even those of us who have done this stuff, have ANY right to bash the guys onscene unless you were there. There is no way to know all the facts without reading all associated reports.

Which necessitates the reports being true. There's a nice case being discussed in another portion of the board in which the initial reports of the SWAT team killing a man with a gun pointed at them have gone through a couple of evolutions with the facts being downgraded to a gun being present in the room when the officers opened fire.

The attitude that we can't "second guess" is essentially a blank check to devolve to the lowest standard possible, because that really is the lowest standard.

Phetro
August 17, 2006, 03:45 PM
Something similar got two veteran Albuquerque Police Officers killed one year ago tomorrow (August 18, 2005). Officers Richard Smith and Micheal King went to check on a man who had made disturbing calls to a local hospital, and were gunned down in front of the house with a .455 Webley revolver. Turns out that John Hyde had already killed three other people that day, but had not yet been connected to those crimes.

These were not rookie officers, both of them had returned to duty following retirement.

I sometimes think that we lose sight of events such as this when we discuss these types of topics on THR.

I don't think anyone forgets them. Most people just realize that they don't justify things like this, and aren't so keen on the whole "Attention: two cops died last year, so from now on, SWAT will be used to 'deal with' anyone who we even think might be doing something we don't like--you will comply" BS.

Raptor5191
August 17, 2006, 03:58 PM
Wow.

How many of you actually believe that police officers have nothing to do but look for innocent gun owners to pick on? Is it correct that a couple of you think that SWAT has nothing else to do either?

If so...all I can say is "Wow. Ya learn something every day."

I seem to remember being pretty damned busy taking rapists, robbers, burglars, and the like to jail when I was not contacting folks as part of my daily routine.

Also...I do not remember ever going on a callout without there actually having been a crime comitted or a warrant of a dangerous person involved. You guys do realize that a callout actually requires certain requisites to be met before the callout is initiated, right?

Don't get me wrong...mistakes do happen in law enforcement. There are a-holes in law enforcement. We know who the a-holes are, too. We don't like 'em either. However...I am a little shocked at the apparent outlook on law enforcement in general from a couple of you.

buzz_knox
August 17, 2006, 04:12 PM
How many of you actually believe that police officers have nothing to do but look for innocent gun owners to pick on? Is it correct that a couple of you think that SWAT has nothing else to do either?

I don't think that statement has ever been made. But your strawman does allow me to make the accurate observation that many police administrators have publicly discussed crackdowns on firearms ownership, and have directed their officers to act accordingly, with collateral damage occurring to law abiding citizens.

Also...I do not remember ever going on a callout without there actually having been a crime comitted or a warrant of a dangerous person involved. You guys do realize that a callout actually requires certain requisites to be met before the callout is initiated, right?

Please identify the crime or warrant at issue in this case. A father had an argument with his son, who owned firearms.

As for the prerequisites, that would depend on the particular jursidiction, no? In some areas, SWAT is used in certain types of cases (drugs, weapons, etc) regardless of any other factor. Additionally, it also also depends on whether or not there was a perceived need to justify increased budgets for these units.

Don't get me wrong...mistakes to happen in law enforcement. There are a-holes in law enforcement. We know who the a-holes are, too. We don't like 'em either. However...I am a little shocked at the apparent outlook on law enforcement in general from a couple of you.

What outlook? That the use of SWAT should be used only when necessary or that the public has the right (even duty) to review police actions? For my part, I'd say that I was shocked by the idea that police should be held to a far higher standard than nearly any other group (i.e. not judged unless one is actually there). Unfortunately, since being on the 'net and being in training classes with officers, I'm less and less shocked by that attitude. I had an officer in training class state openly that he only wanted judges in office who would rule 100% in favor of officers, regardless of the facts. I find that attitude far more terrifying than a group of individuals "Monday morning quarterbacking" a SWAT callout on a non-violent domestic confrontation.

Phetro
August 17, 2006, 04:13 PM
Wow.

How many of you actually believe that police officers have nothing to do but look for innocent gun owners to pick on? Is it correct that a couple of you think that SWAT has nothing else to do either?

If so...all I can say is "Wow. Ya learn something every day."

I seem to remember being pretty damned busy taking rapists, robbers, burglars, and the like to jail when I was not contacting folks as part of my daily routine.

Also...I do not remember ever going on a callout without there actually having been a crime comitted or a warrant of a dangerous person involved. You guys do realize that a callout actually requires certain requisites to be met before the callout is initiated, right?

Don't get me wrong...mistakes to happen in law enforcement. There are a-holes in law enforcement. We know who the a-holes are, too. We don't like 'em either. However...I am a little shocked at the apparent outlook on law enforcement in general from a couple of you.

No one has criticized law enforcement in general--only police-state tactics and SWAT teams. SWAT teams in general are an unnecessary evil. The police have no business forming and using paramilitary units. The fact that they do it anyway does not--and will never--make it right.

And when that unjustified paramilitary abuses citizens' rights, you'd better believe people will be outraged.

ilbob
August 17, 2006, 04:19 PM
Also...I do not remember ever going on a callout without there actually having been a crime comitted or a warrant of a dangerous person involved. You guys do realize that a callout actually requires certain requisites to be met before the callout is initiated, right?

It would appear the requirements for a SWAT callout are not all that high, at least in Seattle, based on this incident.

But, as others have been quick to point out, the news report left a lot out and whether there was good reason to do much of anything will probably never see the light of day. At least on THR.

The fact that the victim was not charged says a lot. Once SWAT gets called out, even erroneously, there has to be immense pressure to find some kind of charge they can stick on him.

Negotiators arrived and were able to talk the man down peacefully.

The report does not give much in the way of details as to how long this incident lasted. I wonder if it was over about 30 seconds after the "negotiation" began.

Sistema1927
August 17, 2006, 04:22 PM
I don't think anyone forgets them. Most people just realize that they don't justify things like this, and aren't so keen on the whole "Attention: two cops died last year, so from now on, SWAT will be used to 'deal with' anyone who we even think might be doing something we don't like--you will comply" BS.

That wasn't my point. However, do you think that this is why SWAT was utilized in this case? Because they didn't "like" something?

None of us were there at the event chronicled at the beginning of this thread, so none of us can ascertain whether the response was proper or not. All that we know is what we have read, and most of the time we discover that events are either misreported or underreported.

Fortunately, we are not responsible for bringing judgment, this lies with the department along with its oversight commissions and mechanisms. Also, if there has been a violation of the law, or if the department stepped over the line, there is also recourse to the courts.

Police Officers can't seem to catch a break, either here or on the streets. Why anyone would sign-up for that duty is beyond me.

buzz_knox
August 17, 2006, 04:25 PM
No one has criticized law enforcement in general--only police-state tactics and SWAT teams. SWAT teams in general are an unnecessary evil. The police have no business forming and using paramilitary units. The fact that they do it anyway does not--and will never--make it right.

And that's the other extreme and, respectfully, just as wrong. SWAT in its most basic form consists of officers who are trained for situations which do not lend themselves to normal solutions, and the tactics and weapons required for those situations. It's a tool/technique that absolutely belongs in the "bag" for situations that call for it. In some circumstances, you want a team of individuals who have worked together, trained together, and know how to function as a unit. You won't get that with officers who don't work together routinely. If you want to train all your officers to the higher standard and work them continuously so that any two officers will be able to function, that's great. But that's also more expensive than having a more dedicated unit.

The problem lies not in SWAT itself, but what develops around the concept.

buzz_knox
August 17, 2006, 04:34 PM
Police Officers can't seem to catch a break, either here or on the streets. Why anyone would sign-up for that duty is beyond me.


For the same reason people become lawyers, doctors, drug reps, union shop stewards, accountants, etc.: interest in the job, desire to help people, desire to wield power, recognition that with the job comes the opportunity for personal gain, and/or some combination of the above.

ilbob
August 17, 2006, 04:36 PM
I think there is clearly a need for SWAT. The problem is that every department has one now and they have to justify the expense by using them. There is also the legitimate concern that SWAT teams need to be able to work together in real situations so they develop into a team.

The first reason is completely bogus, but political in nature.

The second reason is more problematical in my mind. There seems to be no question that SWAT teams need to work together as much as possible to develop the necessary team work they need to be effective. But there are not all that many legitimate SWAT type incidents, so the criteria for a SWAT incident is relaxed until there is enough work to keep them busy. Its not quite that simple, but I think it is pretty close. I don't know that I have an answer to this (and I tend to think I have an answer for everything). I am not comfortable with having undertrained SWAT teams having to deal with a real SWAT type situation; or letting loose SWAT teams on someone that had a disagreement with another person, just to give the SWAT team something to do.

steelhead
August 17, 2006, 04:41 PM
OMG, I can't believe all the condemnation over an initial news report. Usually everone is all over the press for getting their facts wrong and/or reporting before all the information is in. But I guess, in this case, the reporters got the full story and the :cuss: cops are trying to steal our guns again.....

Isn't it possible that the father told the police some additional, and unreported, information that caused the SPD to send out a SWAT Team? Maybe the son stated that he was going home and kill himself (either self inflicted or "suicide by cop") or get his guns and start shooting people. Maybe the police were told he is on meth or LSD and is out of control. Who knows for sure what has happened? All I know is that no one here does.

Spitting on the motives and actions of the police isn't any different than spitting on the troops overseas. They are out there protecting and serving the public and they don't have the benefit of clarivoyance - that so many of you seem to have......:fire:

Go back to the bunker, plug in the Red Dawn movie, and wait for the UN to show up will ya.....

Raptor5191
August 17, 2006, 04:46 PM
My entire point is that none of us were there apparently.

So...jumping to the conclusion that the police overreacted is unwise. Do you believe EVERYTHING you read...especially in the press? Do you KNOW what was said to the call center when he called them regarding his son?

As of yet I have not heard that anyone here does.

If you DO believe everything you read in the press I have some oceanfront property to sell you. It is right at the base of the Franklin Montains.

Phetro, did you convict the Marine that shot the insurgent that was down before the facts came out as well?

illBob...it seems we see things similarly but just have different ways to go about it.

buzz_knox
August 17, 2006, 04:47 PM
There's a tendency amongst humans to want to use the skills they have acquired. Warriors don't like war, but they don't like never using their skills. Doctors don't like to see people injured, but they want to practice medicine.

To date, the only group that I've ever heard of that didn't want to use their skills for real were Air Force missileers. Bombers pilots get to fly, boomer crews get to be holes in the water, but missileers just sit in holes and hope their skills are never put to the test.

When all you have is a hammer, you see every problem as a nail. The corrollary is that when you have other tools but also have the biggest, baddest hammer on the block, you go looking for nails or anything resembling said protruding item.

Raptor5191
August 17, 2006, 04:49 PM
Thanks Steelhead, Sistema, and buzz_knox. Nice to hear that some people get it.

Vex
August 17, 2006, 05:26 PM
My entire point is that none of us were there apparently.

So...jumping to the conclusion that the police overreacted is unwise. Do you believe EVERYTHING you read...especially in the press? Do you KNOW what was said to the call center when he called them regarding his son?

As of yet I have not heard that anyone here does.

If you DO believe everything you read in the press I have some oceanfront property to sell you. It is right at the base of the Franklin Montains.

Phetro, did you convict the Marine that shot the insurgent that was down before the facts came out as well?

illBob...it seems we see things similarly but just have different ways to go about it.

Raptor, you're new here, so I'm going to fill you in on what this forum is all about. If someone's civil rights could possibly have been violated by the jack booted thugs (police), nobody cares about the facts. The facts are just useless pieces of information that cloud the truth. What you're failing to see is because this guy was detained for no reason and for committing no crime, it means we have to start a revolution and begin the SHTF bugout. We don't have to be there to know what really happened: the utter disregard for the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, and 8th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America.

:rolleyes:

Raptor5191
August 17, 2006, 05:35 PM
Thanks for rolling, Vex. Just checked your profile. Disregard the PM question.

Jeff White
August 17, 2006, 06:08 PM
I think this has gone on long enough. Members should refrain from posting deliberately inflammitory topics based on news atricles that don't contain enough information to allow a reasonable person to make a judgement one way or another if the action in question was correct.

Jeff

If you enjoyed reading about "Revolting! Man in Seattle gets Swat team sent on him for having 3 handguns" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!