Trooper shot & killed by barricaded warrant suspect

Jeff White

July 9, 2003, 12:16 PM

...and for this, a husband and father is dead. Swell.

No Tam, a husband and father is dead because a criminal barricaded himself in his house with a weapon after the local police knocked on his door and attempted to serve the arrest warrant.

The standoff began the previous day when officers attempted to serve a solicitation of prostitution warrant on a male. The suspect indicated he had a gun and held officers at bay. The Michigan State Police Emergency Response Unit was called to assist at the scene and attempted an entry after deploying tear gas inside the home.

The local police attempted to take Woodring into custody. He could have avoided all of this if he had just submitted to arrest, hired a lawyer and fought it out in court. But Mr. Woodring is the one who escalated the situation. What would you have had the police do at the point he armed himself and barricaded himself in his home? Maybe they just should have apologized. "I'm sorry Mr. Woodring, I didn't realize that it was an inconvenient time for you to come on down to the courthouse and clear this up. Perhaps you should call us when this will fit into your busy schedule."

This isn't a case of a SWAT team run wild.

A fiery end to a 40 hour standoff in Freemont. State Police say they attempted to flush Scott Woodring out of his home by firing a series of percussion rounds this afternoon.

Sounds to me like they tried to end things peacefully. The commander on the scene made a decision to attempt an entry based on the information that was available to him at the time. The use of tear gas and/or distraction devices is for everyone's safety, especially the suspect's. It's only considered a successful operation if all of the officers go home safe, no bystanders are injured and the suspect goes to jail, not the hospital or morgue.

We can argue the merits of criminalization of prostitution, but the fact remains that Woodring made it a bigger deal then it needed to be when he violently refused to submit to arrest.

38snapcaps,

I'm thinking-isn't this just so familiar, and I don't mean Waco. Go back to the 1940's, the Jewish Warsaw ghetto uprising, maybe some of you have the seen that movie that was recently on. That's what the storm troopers did, tanks and flame throwers to get at the freedom fighters and take them out.

At what point did Woodring become a freedom fighter? When he refused to submit to arrest on the warrant? Or was it when he shot Trooper Marshall? :banghead:

This has no similarity to the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, or the Waco debacle. Officers from the local PD attempted to serve a lawful warrant. Woodring refused and armed himself and barricaded himself in the house. Appropriate equipment was brought in to end the situation. If you don't like the armored vehicle, perhaps another method to approach the house would be more palatable to you. How does fire and maneuver strike you? Instead of an armored vehicle that would allow the officers to safely approach the house, we just get everyone with a badge in 3 counties, and maybe deputize some private citizens if we need more manpower and let them fire into all the windows and doors of the house to keep the suspect's head down while the house is approached. Sound good to you? Looks more like a scene from The Gauntlet, or Bonnie and Clyde but our peace officers sure won't have that storm trooper look.

hammer4nc,

Please tell me how they exercised the Waco option? Outside of an officer being killed and the house burning, what other similarities are you talking about. Did the Michigan State Police decide to stage the operation to coincide with the legislature debating on their budget? Did they lie to the Army to get equipment and training? Did they stage a media circus? If so they are doing a better job of covering their tracks then BATF ever did. Just think how devious it was to send the local PD in fisrt to attempt to arrest Woodring in a peaceful manner. It was also pretty tricky how they waited 40 hours before they attempted to end the standoff. Gave them an excuse to fire incidiaries in the house and most of us sheeple out here will think that it was a reasonable use of force. Following your line of thinking, we have to assume Woodring was in on it, after all, they haven't found his body and are assuming he's alive :rolleyes:

I'm not sure how to feel about the fact that so many of my friends here at THR will celebrate my death if I'm ever unfortunate enough to be killed in the line of duty. :confused:

Jeff

oldfart

July 9, 2003, 12:52 PM

Jeff:

More and more, a simple fact is poking up all around the country: People do not trust the police.

Individual police officers are usually ok. But when they band together in groups, things go downhill rapidly. This same phenomenon can be seen on any playground. Two or three boys can get along well, but let eight or ten get together and, unless they're involved in some sort of game with definite rules, they begin a loose ritual of trying to find a leader of the pack. Each does_what he can to impress the others, each subsequently going just a bit further to make his point. Eventually, if the ritual goes on long enough, there is a fight or some other violent action.

Two police officers in a car can handle a traffic violation with ease. If two other cars arrive as backup, the original officer feels he is under some sort of pressure to show how well he is taking command of the "situation". All too often he raises his voice, becomes more authoritarian in his actions and unintentionally offends the driver even more than he already has. When the citation is finally written and the driver has gone down the road, he carries with him a new and stronger dislike of the police.

Before you tell me that I don't know what I'm talking about, let me assure you that I've been on the ground on both sides of the issue. I served on police forces probably before you were born and been through the unpleasant experience of being arrested for something which-- while the officer felt I was doing something wrong-- the judge threw out of court.

Mostly Harmless

July 9, 2003, 02:03 PM

On another board someone said: "People that knew Scott have stated that he probably said something to girls at a gas station concerning the way they were dressed, not being proper or moral. Scott was known to be a God-fearing man. The girls could have been offended, making an accusation. "

If this is correct, and I have no way of verifying it, I'm not sure what they were charging him with. Isn't soliciting the services of a prostitute a misdemeanor? It's hardly something that should have garnered him or the trooper a death sentence.

The other poster also said:"Scott Woodward, Chaplian for Newaygo County, Is dead after police served a warrant for alleged criminal sexual conduct. The Woodward's house has been completeley destroyed by fire after projectiles were shot into the home. Scott told the officers to check the security tape at the gas station where the alleged conduct took place and that would clear his name. He then told them to leave his land, which they did, so they could gather a force together. Two days had passed and he had not heard from them and he assumed they had dropped the warrant. They showed up on either 5 or 6 July to siege the home and a fire fight started sometime thereafter leaving the trooper mortally wounded ad one other trooper injured."

IM(NS)HO the guy was a little paranoid and overreacted to a minor issue. However, the police are not without fault for (a) turning it into a seige and (b) escalating it with concussion grenades or other projectiles instead of allowing negotiators adequate time to defuse the situation.

According to one news report (emphhasis added) : "Police said Woodring fired two shots at the officers while they tried to negotiate with him. On Monday afternoon, a state police entry team then entered the home in Fremont, about 30 miles northeast of Muskegon, and Woodring allegedly shot at them.

Several hours into the standoff, police helped Woodring's wife escape the home, leaving him alone inside.

When asked whether Marshall could have been hit by a bullet shot by another officer, state police Inspector Barry Getzen said the matter remained under investigation and that authorities would examine evidence to "determine what rounds the officer was hit with."

The last contact police had with Woodring was Monday, Getzen said. "

Lots of errors, mistakes, miscalculations, and poor judgement calls on both sides. This sort of thing is going to happen more frequently and with increasingly unpleasant and unintended consequences unless the government and police restrain themselves, or are restrained by the citizenry.

J.

brownie0486

July 9, 2003, 02:27 PM

Mostly Harmless:

The court issued a warrant. The cops were serving the warrant and had every right to be in that location at that time.

I'm not so sure that they "seiged" him as you state either. All the dirtbag had to do was cooperate with their commands to exit the home. There is a right way and a wrong way to react to

You stated: "and with increasingly unpleasant and unintended consequences unless the government and police restrain themselves, or are restrained by the citizenry."

The citizens will not be restraining the government by force unless there is all out anarchy in the streets. I think there will be, as you suggest, unpleasant and unintended consequences, but it will mostly be on the part of the citizenry if they can't work witrhin the system.

All he had to do was obey their commands and exit peacfully. He would have been arrested, booked, and bailed to fight it out in the courts.

If you are going to barricade youself in a residence against the police authority outside, what are your expectations of their actions at your non-compliance?

You and I both know the police are not just going to go away because you refuse to come out. They have a job to do, are mandated to serve the warrant issued and will do whatever it takes [ all dependant on the defendants actions to their presence ], to comply with the courts order.

I have been LE for 9 years, retired now, but if I found myself in that scenario and barricaded myself [ having been trained in swat and counter sniper ], against the cops outside I'd be willing to die at that point.

He could not expect any less by barricading himself and threatening them against their lawful entry. And therein is the key, the police were there lawfully, he was the one who escalated to situation to deadly force.

Their actions were predicated on his. The outcome is his responsibility, not the agencies involved at the scene.

Brownie

Jeff White

July 9, 2003, 02:52 PM

oldfart,

More and more, a simple fact is poking up all around the country: People do not trust the police.

I know and it bothers me....a lot. Why do you think that is? Perhaps one reason is that there are too many laws on the books in general. Perhaps another reason is that there are too many laws on the books that criminalize behavior that a large part of society finds acceptable. Perhaps a lot of law abiding gunowners fear the police because they can't understand what the laws pertaining to their hobby mean. Even those who wrote and interpret those laws aren't sure what they mean. Look at the conflicting rulings BATF has issued over the years. So good people go to bed at night worrying about the 2 am knock on the door because they can't prove that a standard capacity magazine was made before 14 September 1994. Perhaps it's because the police are the representatives of a government that the private citizen is most likely to interact with and it's just indicative of the general lack of respect for government that exists in the wake of all the public scandals. Perhaps it's all of these reasons and more.

But I do know one thing for sure. Our enemies, those who seek to disarm us, like things this way. In fact they have publically stated that they want to drive a wedge between law abiding gunowners and the police (two groups who at one time were natural allies, and still should be). Josh Sugarman, Sarah Brady and that ilk love it that this is going on. They know that we will be easier to disarm if we are divided.

I have been a peace officer for 18 years. I am long past any pie and the sky notions that everyone will love and respect us. The only interaction most people ever have with a peace officer is negative. Either they have committed some offense, or they have been victimized by someone.

If anyone of you was ever involved in a defensive shooting, you'd want all the facts in before there was a rush to judge your actions. That's not happening here much anymore. Now it seems that any post involving the police is an excuse to pile on.

In this case we have a warrant that was issued either for solicitation for prostitution or having sexual relations with a minor (both versions have been posted). Depending on your individual point of view one or both charges may or may not be a crime by your own standards. And if so, this tragedy is an example you can use to try to get your representatives to change or repeal the law.

The local police department attempted to serve the warrant and peacefully arrest Woodring. This didn't start with a predawn no knock raid. It started with local officers walking up on the porch and asking Woodring to come along with them. Woodring then barricaded himself in the house, armed himself and refused to comply. So what would you all have done at this point?

The Michigan State Police Emergency Response Team was called for mutual aid, probably because the local PD didn't have that capability. This is in keeping with what most of you said was appropriate in Boats' thread on the militarization of police departments. This wasn't Andy and Barney meet HK. This was a state level emergency responce unit.

After a 40 hour standoff, the commander at the scene decided to end it with an attempted entry. No one here knows what information he had that prompted this decision. Either tear gas or flashbang type distraction devices (or both) were used to attempt to disorient Woodring enough to facilitate his arrest with no injuries.

Now a husband and father is dead. I'd like to believe (as I'm sure his family and coworkers do) that he died for something bigger then himself. He sacrificed himself for the people of Michigan so that a man who had proved himself to be a danger to himself and others could be arrested. The original crime became immaterial when Woodring refused to submit to arrest and chose to barricade himself in the house and arm himself.

This was no "I thought it was home invaders and opened fire in fear of my life" situation. This was a man who was refusing to comply with a lawful arrest warrant. Would any of you have us not arrest anyone because they might resist? Is it not reasonable to believe that someone who would react that way to avoid facing justice for a minor offense (depends on which charge the arrest warrant was really for) might be enough of a danger to himself and others that they needed to take him into custody for everyone's safety?

I don't know what kind of munitions were used, but I doubt it was their plan to burn the house down, especially if they were entering the house. Might be a little unsafe for the entry team.

I'm sure there are plenty of examples of mistakes and abuses by the police (as there are in every profession) but this doesn't appear to be one of them.

Everyone, including the police deserves to have the facts presented before they are judged.

Jeff

Gordon Fink

July 9, 2003, 03:25 PM

The original crime became immaterial when Woodring refused to submit to arrest and chose to barricade himself in the house and arm himself.

Out of curiosity, is there ever a point where a freeman should not submit to “lawful” arrest? This probably wasn’t the case in Woodring’s situation, but Jeff White’s statement does beg the question.…

~G. Fink

Jeff White

July 9, 2003, 04:09 PM

Gordon,
We are not yet to the point where you should refuse to submit to a lawful arrest. The civil rights protestors in the '60s submitted to arrest for the Jim Crow laws and then fought in court. That's the way our system works. How many Jim Crow laws are still on the books?

The day we can refuse to submit to a lawful arrest the revolution will already be raging. All other options for peaceful and legal means of removing unjust or unconstitutional laws need to be exhausted first.

The system is set up to eventually win in all cases of refusal to submit to a lawful arrest. If you make such a decision, you should have enough like thinking friends who will stand shoulder to shoulder and back to back with you. They will have to be prepared to lose their family, their wealth, their status in the community, their freedom or ultimately their life. The same decsions our founding fathers had to make back in 1775. Like I said, that starts the revolution. Are things that bad now?

Don't misconstrue this into a statement advocating a police state. If things ever get bad enough that it's time to refuse to submit to the law, many rank and file police officers and military personnel will most likely be standing with you. I think we've got a long way to go and a lot of options open to us before we get there.

Jeff

Jeff

benewton

July 9, 2003, 05:08 PM

I've a friend who had part of his property "taken" by the town to provide an easier entry point to a connected person's home.

His lawyer told him that he was in the right, and that he could fight it in court, but it would cost him his own home and land's value to do so, and, that, in the end, he'd run out of money before the town did, and so would lose.

I think that line of reasoning holds for invalid criminal charges, and politically ambitious DA's too, especially in PC ridden areas. Too, having ruined the man's name and probably his finances, even if he "wins", hasn't it occured to at least some of you that the "legal" route is flawed, at best?

In a less lethal environment, read about the White House Travel office case, look at the "suspects" state after the acquital, and think of YOUR options of beating the rap, no matter what you're accused of.

"All the dirtbag had to do was cooperate with their commands to exit the
home."

If you LEO's haven't noticed, although I'm sure you have, once in the home you can surely find something illegal. After all, there are enough laws, and you might think about the size of the law books stacked up, that there's gotta be something you can charge him with, and I'm intentionally excluding the possibility of merely lying, which I've seen done before.

Then you can plea bargain the case on the lower rap, if necessary; the cops look good, the LEOs look good, and the only one screwed would be the "perp", and, after all, the good of the many trumps the good of the individual.

As for me, there have been too many burning houses; too many mistaken dynamic entries with dead occupants. Yes, the government pays money, but the police as persons pay nothing, and thus go to the next action with the same attitude they've always had, and, eventually, the same results.

My local cops have called, unannounced, and have waited to be recognized before exiting their vehicle and being invited in, showing good common sense since they know that I'm armed. It also shows a bit of respect, which is always, in my view, a good idea when dealing with most people. The chief and I have also, by mutual intent, met, which makes things more clear to both parties.

Had the staties shown up and jumped out of their car amid the wooffing mutts, they'd have been met with a long arm (*along with the omnipresent sidearm): I don't know them, I've never met them, and so have no trust in them. Further, I've got my share of traffic tickets from the generic state trooper, and their "I'm the boss and you'll do what you're told" attitude won't be allowed attempting to enter my back door.

I understand that you LEO types have nasty work to do, but you enlisted without a draft, and are civilians yourselves, and may resign your position at any time. You aren't military, and you have civil rights, and would improve your image a good deal if you dropped your increasingly militant "us vrs them" attitude. You're supposed to be part of us, after all.

If you don't recognize your increasing isolation from the general populace, all of us are going to pay a huge price, and I don't think that the due date will be all that far in the future.

(edited just a bit...)

2nd Amendment

July 9, 2003, 05:19 PM

Slap a sex crime accusation against someone, or drugs, then kill them if they don't immediately fold and go peaceably into the gulag where most people lack the cash to ever see the light of day again. Either way we know only what the "authorities" tell us. And, of course, most people will brand the deceased a "dirtbag" based on the charges alone. In reality we have no idea if he was innocent, guilty, the target of some form of persecution(local, political or otherwise) or what. And in the end, if a Totalitarian State ever arrives, whether the first thrust be gun confiscation or not how do you think "they" will take "you" down? A straight forward assault because you are standing up for your rights? No, they'll label you a sex offender or a druggie or a "terrorist" and put paid to you however they can. And the bulk of the public will be glad you're gone because, after all, you were just an Evul (insert charge here). THAT is why people increasingly distrust the police, because it just keeps getting harder to know when things are legit and when there's more going on beneath the surface.

Whatever, it makes for good headlines.

Cosmoline

July 9, 2003, 05:42 PM

Why do you keep posting these?

Mostly Harmless

July 9, 2003, 05:51 PM

And here's a big part of the problem:
brownie0486 wrote: "I'm not so sure that they "seiged" him as you state either. All the dirtbag had to do was cooperate with their commands to exit the home. " (emphasis added).

Whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty"? Whatever happened to common courtesy?

Were you there brownie? Is that why you are so certain he's a "dirtbag"? Or does the fact that he refused to roll over for the cops and fought back automatically give him dirtbag status?

I wasn't there, so I don't know exactly what went down. But I do know and have seen over the course of recent years a very distressing tendency on the part of LEOs to treat citizens like criminals where there is no necessity to do so.

I'm not saying the guy was right and the cops wrong. I'm saying they're both wrong! He's wrong for not being civil about their warrant the first time, they're wrong for coming back 2 days later with a swat team.

It's my understanding that after the gentleman had "words" with some girls at a gas station, they filed a complaint about him. The cops turned this into a solicitation charge. Sounds to me more like the kind of "he said, she said" dispute that in the old days would have been solved by a quiet word from the sheriff, or other LEO who'd warn the dude off on the one hand and tell the girls parents to get a grip on the other. Instead it gets turned into what the guy saw as an excuse to "get him because he's openly a militia man". And people wonder why these guys are paranoid! :confused:

These days, if they come for you on a bogus charge, you can pretty much kiss your life goodbye. Between state and federal law, there's always something they can get you on. Unless you're as rich as Bill Gates, fighting to clear your name and get any seized property back is out of the question. Is it any wonder that people sometimes believe that it's better to go down fighting than lose everything?

Traveling with too much cash? must be drug money. Kiss it goodbye.
Driving around in a fancy car with lots of cash? well, both car and cash must be drug money. Kiss them goodbye.

It happens and it's wrong.

The revolution won't come because of anything we intellectual types do on the internet. The revolution will come when enough "Joe Sixpacks" blow fuses... It won't be pretty, it won't be organized, but it will happen. It's happening already -- individuals striking out at cops (and usually losing) because of their frustration with the omnipresence of law enforcement.

I've kicked around a lot of the world for a lot of years. I've seen (and done) stuff that would turn most people's hair white. I don't like what I'm seeing here and now. I've been in other countries where heavy-handed police work has led to full-scale riots. The harder you clamp down on people's freedom and individual sovereignty, the worse the backlash when it comes. It will come. Unfortunately I think things will get a lot worse here first.

J.

hammer4nc

July 9, 2003, 06:08 PM

Jeff white asked:
hammer4nc,

Please tell me how they exercised the Waco option? Outside of an officer being killed and the house burning, what other similarities are you talking about.

Hi Jeff,

At the time I posted the Waco analogy, the two factors you mentioned were the parallels I had in mind. Pretty major ones, if you ask me. However, since reading this followup story, a number of other striking similarities emerge:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.wotv.com/index.php?goto=story&RecordID=2405
http://woodtv.triton.net/wotv/images/stories/2405thumb240.jpg

Home at the center of standoff on fire

The blaze erupted shortly after a light-armored vehicle shot a percussion round into the home at about 3:45 p.m. Officials, however, were unsure if the explosive, meant to shock, started the fire or if the man inside set it.

Police did not know the whereabouts of the man, who family members identified as Scott Allen Woodring, 40, but noted he may be in the basement of the structure.

Police planned to hold a news conference at 10 a.m. Wednesday to discuss the incident.

The standoff left Trooper Kevin Marshall, a 33-year-old father of two, dead. Marshall was shot Monday afternoon and died later during surgery.

State police said the standoff at the Dayton Township home began early Monday when officers from the Hesperia Police Department and the Newaygo County Sheriff's Department tried to serve Woodring with a felony arrest warrant for criminal sexual conduct with a minor. Dayton Township is about 30 miles northeast of Muskegon.

Woodring is accused of soliciting sex on July 1 at a gas station, The Grand Rapids Press reported Tuesday.

Woodring's sister, Debbie DeVisser, said her brother is a religious man who serves as a chaplain for a nonviolent militia group that supports the right to bear arms. She did not know the name of the group. DeVisser believes Woodring had one or two rifles and a revolver in the home, all of which he had permits for.

DeVisser described her brother as a kind man who would help anyone and not ask anything in return. Asked if she thought he would shoot at someone, DeVisser said, "Scott would not shoot anybody to harm anybody. The only reason he would have shot (at police) was because he felt threatened and to protect himself."

DeVisser said she wished police had allowed family members to talk to Woodring on Tuesday and speculated that family may have been able to talk him out. Relatives were allowed to converse with him on Monday. Police said the last conversation they had with Woodring was on Monday.

"We are hopeful that he is possibly alive or in his basement, maybe just injured or that he got out. But realistically, we don't see that happening," DeVisser said, noting Woodring, who is married, had no children and is the oldest of four siblings.

Suzie Burdick, 49, of Everett Township in Newaygo County, described Woodring as a close friend she has known for five years. She said she talked to him several times a day, mostly about the Bible. For the past year, Woodring attended her church, Burdick said.

Burdick noted while Woodring holds strong anti-government views, he was a nonviolent person.

"He's the most loving person I've ever known about. He's kind, considerate, loving, caring and loved his wife dearly," Burdick said.

Burdick said she once saw Woodring reach into his wallet and produce a $100 bill to give to a customer at the Fremont auto parts store where she used to work when the customer did not have enough money to buy a part he needed.

"I watched it happen. How many people would do that?" she asked.

Authorities say when officers arrived at Woodring's door on Monday, he barricaded himself in his home and the Michigan State Police Emergency Support Team was called. Marshall was a member of that team.

Police said Woodring fired two shots at the officers while they tried to negotiate with him. On Monday afternoon, a state police entry team then entered the home and Woodring allegedly shot at them.

Several hours into the standoff, police helped Woodring's wife escape the home, leaving him alone inside.

When asked whether Marshall could have been hit by a bullet shot by another officer, state police Inspector Barry Getzen said the matter remained under investigation and that authorities would examine evidence to "determine what rounds the officer was hit with."

Marshall was with the Newaygo post and had served with the state police for eight years. He was honored with the Michigan State Police Bravery Award in May after wrestling a knife away from a woman in Newaygo, officials said.

"He was an outstanding officer, a great family guy and well-respected in the community," Getzen said.

Gov. Jennifer Granholm ordered flags at all state buildings to be lowered to half-staff until sundown of the day of Marshall's funeral. Funeral arrangements have not yet been confirmed, the governor's office reported.

Marshall is the 49th Michigan State Police trooper to die in the line of duty. His death is the department's first in three years.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Religious overtones, child sex abuse charges. Add to that, the militia angle (implying distrust of the govt, from the get-go). Throw in standard PEST protocols, and the result is quite predictable, don't you think? This statement is made without value judgement on either side.

Oh, one other thing...after the first officer was shot, I keep reading about the use of "percussion rounds", "distraction devices", and feigned surprise at the conflagration..."maybe he set the fire?" Again, a Waco similairity; a reasonable observer would conclude at that point, they meant to burn his a$$ out of there, no big deal, he'd made his choices leading up to that. I'm just saying that the public affairs cover story is somewhat transparent.

Speaking for myself Jeff, please reconsider the notion that there's any celebration over this incident. "It didn't have to happen"...could lead to different actions on both sides.

12-34hom

July 9, 2003, 06:15 PM

"Why do you keep posting these"? Cosmolie asks

I don't know TBO personal reasons, but i could ask, Why are there so many anti - peace officer threads posted by others here at THR??

I have learned that there are some here, that will never change thier attitudes towards any type of authority, let alone the police and the duty they perform for the benifit of society on a whole.

That's there crutch in life, so that they won't have to own up to thier personal actions and its effects on others as they live.

To the officer who was killed - RIP.

We are diminished.

12-34hom.

brownie0486

July 9, 2003, 06:38 PM

He became a dirtbag when he barricaded himself while armed and became a threat to LE's, the community and himself.

Have to be there to know that? I didn;t call him a dirt bag for the alleged offenses, but for his actions when the police arrived with a legal warrant. He endangered the cops and as it is, got one killed one way or the other. He could have surrendered his freedom at that time and taken the correct course of redress with the courts at a later date.

As to the money issues stated about not being able to defend yourself without being financally secure--------that gives him the right to resist the lawful warrant of arrest?

"Sorry officers, I don;t make enough to defend myself and my position so go screw yourself, I'm barricading n my home and will kill anyone who enters"
Now there is a good reason if I ever heard one---not.

As to the LE's finding something in the home to charge him with--he was already charged with a crime and thats why they were there. It wasn't a hunting expedition to put some lame quasi militia man in jail as sugested. But the statement made thus would show most that the attitude taken is that the LE's are wrong and somehow violating HIS rights.

The moment he resisted their authority [ whether it was right or wrong they were there ] he bacame guilty of other offenses besides the original charge. Innocent until proven guilty, ya if you act in an appropriate/civil manner and not in a threatening manner where others are put at risk of life and limb [ as it were ].

There is a prescribed way to redress any grievances you have in the courts. Pick a fight with the arresting authorities atthe scene and you run the risk of injury or death. He chose to be a dirtbag instead. No better than a murderer to my thinking.

Your statement that "the cops turned this into a solicitation charge" is incorrect. The courts looked at the witnesses testimony and ordered [ through the warrant ] the cops to pick him up. The cops didn;t turn it into anything, the system worked as it should. Allegations were made, were found to be compelling enough to issue the warrant by the court and thus the standoff [ caused by the alleged perp, not the cops ].

That "he said, she said" and years ago it would have been a talking to by a sheriff are incorrect. The sheriff would have had to bring him downtown, charge him based on a presumption the allegations were not falsified by the alleged victims, and court action to determine whether there was enough substantiating evidence to convict.

How do you roll over for the cops anyway? Is that your position and stance if you have any interaction with the local LE's in your area? You rolled over?
They haven't stated the cops had the girls set him up for them yet. It has been reported that the girls reported an incident which the courts deemed in violation of a statute in that district.

If you choose to go down fighting you will lose. A prudent person would recognize that fact and act accordingly unless they didn't care about themselves or others they would be affecting by their actions.

"Burdick noted while Woodring holds strong anti-government views, he was a nonviolent person." Uh huh, based on his actions that day, I would have to guess that statement is incorrect.

The us vs. them in your postings are readily apparent sir.

12-34hom: Right on!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Brownie

Alan Smithiee

July 9, 2003, 07:02 PM

2 observations....

how many differnt versions of this event do we have floating around now?

and who here can finnacialy afford the full weight of a full court press when some DA desides that some gun owner needs to be made an example of?

are you going to impoversh yourself and your family for the rest of your life to fight even when you are right when the DA has effectivly unlimited funds to keep it running for years and years and years?

I wish I could say I would, but I know I can't.

Cosmoline

July 9, 2003, 07:04 PM

I'm not trying to knock LEO's. Some are good, some are bad. Some are good but part of very bad systems. I do wonder why the endless cut-n-paste from what appears to be a memorial board, noting killings that go back many months or years.

What's the point of it? What if I were to post old newspaper articles about people killed by the police over and over again?

agricola

July 9, 2003, 07:16 PM

brownie: excellent post, I'd like to add some stuff.

You know, we have soliciting over here - we call it "kerb crawling", and when one worked in the West End it was fairly common to see kerb-crawlers waiting their turn at Bow Street or Horseferry Road to try and explain just exactly what they had said to "that nice woman who looked lost but turned out to be an undercover Pc". I never got anyone for that, but one always used to watch them from the back of the court, waiting for my own go, and knowing that most of them were probably "upstanding", "law abiding", "churchgoing" nice guys for whom this public shaming was going to be the defining point of their lives, and very likely risking their marriage and jobs into the bargain. That is an awful lot to lose and one could imagine that, suddenly confronted with the PD outside his house about the little indiscretions he had been having, your man flipped with the tragic results as shown. Consider it this way; one imagines that those of you "well its just a soliticiting warrant" people would expect the PD to do something if someone followed your wife or daughter harrassing her for sex and I doubt very much if you'd accept an LEO saying "Naughty boy, dont do it again". We arent talking about hi-cap magazines, the AWB or any of the usual bete noir, we are talking about a man trying to solicit (what seem to be) underage girls.

As an aside, some of you may be aware that there was a long-running siege in Hackney over Christmas which started in a similar fashion - albeit in that one they found the guys car and accidentally found him. The waiting game that the Met was sensible on that occasion because Eli Hall (the barricaded man) was clearly not going to be taken quietly, and he had twice attempted to shoot Police, once in Soho and then in Hackney itself. It lasted fifteen days, then he was shot by Police and then shot himself. Sometimes the only option with these things is to wait them out.

Chris Rhines

July 9, 2003, 07:32 PM

Cosmoline:

Why do you keep posting these? I've been wondering this myself.

I hope that the intention behind these postings is not to use emotional stories to browbeat us into overlooking criminal actions and rights violations perpetrated by sworn LEOs.

- Chris

Rebel Gunman HK

July 9, 2003, 07:42 PM

Looks to me like an us vs. them issue. Peoples nature is to compete and team up, whatever. I feel strongly for both sides. I feel sorry for the Officer that was killed and I believe that Police Officers have a very difficult job, having to balence their safety vs. treating everybody with the respect they deserve. They do have a job to do, but damn there are alot of laws out there. Frickin stupid laws! Just look at our struggle with people trying to take our guns away! But anyway.. I think that putting police officers in a position to go into somebody's house in a SEIGE (and it was a siege) over a lame prostitution warrant is retarded. When you have to enter an area to get an armed man who you cant see and start shooting frickin missles or whatever into his house, it dosent take a genius to know that somebody is gonna get killed. Usually the BG, cause the police use our tax money to try and become the Special Forces and get all the kick ??? guns and some "tactical" training. All to be used to get a guy in a hose with a gun and a prostitution warrant. Geez. I just dont think its worth any cops life to storm a home tryin to get a pimp. Maybe a murder, but he hasnt hurt anyone.. give him a break. Dont blow up his house and send in the SEALS. Anyway. I wish people could get along more with the Police, who are supposed to be working for us. And I wish Police could get rid of that us vs. them mentality. But again, thats human nature. Damn I typed alot. Lets just try to calm down and have some compassion for the other "side". Put yourself in their shoes. I know I have changed everybodies minds. Have a nice night. :rolleyes:

brownie0486

July 9, 2003, 08:39 PM

Chris Rhines states:

"I hope that the intention behind these postings is not to use emotional stories to browbeat us into overlooking criminal actions and rights violations perpetrated by sworn LEOs."

Chris, I don't think you have to worry about that too much here, seems quite a few make it a point to post such things quite often, as in more than regularly. How do I know? I interject here and there from time to time when they pop up.

Though I can't answer for TheeBadOne posting these, I don't often visit the site he has been purported to be accessing the info from and consequently I learn of events that have happened which are worth discussion, at least as much so as the anti-establishment crowd that hangs here [ which I enjoy immensely ].

Do you really feel browbeaten by TheeBadOne's posts? Well, it wouldn't surprise me at all because thats exactly how I've felt to some extent on several ocassions from others "postings about criminal actions and rights violations perpetrated by sworn LEOs."

Brownie

benewton

July 9, 2003, 09:05 PM

agricola:

You're out of this one since your society requires all to submit to anyone at any time for any reason, else they're jailed by the crown. Damned good thing, I think,that, so far as I know, drawing and quartering has gone by the boards.

brownie:

" As to the money issues stated about not being able to defend yourself without being financally secure--------that gives him the right to resist the lawful warrant of arrest?"

Of course it would, since you can die on your feet, or you can die on your knees, but, in either case, you're screwed.

Did it enter your mind that he could have been a threat, defensively, to the LEOs forcing entry, but to no one else?

In the end, of course, it'lll be a "good shoot" by the cops.

You might want to think, for a second or two, that there are those of us who don't truely believe the results of the police investigating themselves, even if they're supported by the local DA, which, in essence, means the government that they work for.

brownie:

One last thing.

We have, on line, the "End of Watch" list, and sad it is.

At which point can we expect to see, in detail, the "We Made a Mistake: The cost" thread?

Or, perhaps, you believe that money out of the taxpayers pockets compensates for LEO errors, or, more likely, that the people need not know of the errors of the elite?
In either case, or pick your own, please tell me how money compensates the dead, since that was the injured party.

Jeff White

July 9, 2003, 09:44 PM

Who has the us vs. them attitude around here? I don't think it's the peace officers who are members. One of the reasons I'm here is because I want to try to bridge the gap that is forming. In the early days of TFL, Rich considered a closed forum for LEOs and the military. The general concensus was that it would only further the us vs. them mentality. If someone care to go back and do a search you can find the thread. Search under my name as a poster. It was in late 98 or early 99.

Ask a question from one of the officers here and you'll get a straight answer. Hardly us vs. them, especially towards someone you've probably never met.

Chris,
What personal knowledge do you have of all these criminal actions and rights violations by sworn LEOs? Is this something you have firsthand knowledge of, or is it something you feel is going on all over the place because of some well publicized stories?

Then there is this from 2nd Amendment;

Slap a sex crime accusation against someone, or drugs, then kill them if they don't immediately fold and go peaceably into the gulag where most people lack the cash to ever see the light of day again. Either way we know only what the "authorities" tell us. And, of course, most people will brand the deceased a "dirtbag" based on the charges alone. In reality we have no idea if he was innocent, guilty, the target of some form of persecution(local, political or otherwise) or what. And in the end, if a Totalitarian State ever arrives, whether the first thrust be gun confiscation or not how do you think "they" will take "you" down? A straight forward assault because you are standing up for your rights? No, they'll label you a sex offender or a druggie or a "terrorist" and put paid to you however they can.

I ask again sir, do you have first hand knowledge that this is going on? Do you guys think that there should be a general amnesty and we should open the prison gates? Do you live in Zimbabwe or the USA?

Agricola may have this situation pegged. Often a suspect is completely cooperative until it's time to put the cuffs on, then the fight is on. Perhaps Mr. Woodring flipped out at the prospect of going to jail on a sex crimes charge. So I ask again, what were the police to have done? Pack up and leave?

Is our system so corrupt that it's a given that they framed this guy because of his anti-government views? How many people do you think would have had to be in on the conspiracy? Lets see, the girls who complained. Any witnesses. The police officer who took the report, the detective who investigated the complaint, the state's attorney or judge who issued the arrest warrant, the officers from two different agencies who tried to serve the warrant and several people in the Michigan State Police. A pretty wide and complicated conspiracy to kill one anti-government activist don't you think?

I think that there are a lot of people here who have no idea how good they have it. While there are some notable exceptions, for the most part the people of this country are served by professional police departments that enforce the laws in accordance with the standards of the community they serve. There are some bad people who are attracted to police work for the wrong reasons, and the system doesn't always do a good job of weeding them out. Some police officers do commit crimes...but some people in all professions do. No one wants these bad cops caught and prosecuted more then the good cops, who are in the majority.

Now here is the hard part for you guys. I don't know why but it is. You must understand that the police work for you. That's right they are your employees. If you don't like the way they are doing things, change it. Now this means a lot of work, because you have to become politically active. It's harder then cheering the death of an officer on the internet. You may have to elect your candidate to a position where he/she can influence how the department is run. That can be hard. But it's doable and it's the way the system is supposed to work. I have posted this in almost every cop bashing thread we have, but it's the truth. The police department that serves you locally is the easiest government agency for you to have an influence in how it's run. Become an activist, change things within the system.

Jeff

Chris Rhines

July 9, 2003, 09:57 PM

Jeff -

Is this (civil rights violations perpetrated by police officers) something you have firsthand knowledge of... Yes.

In the spirit of fair play, I put the reverse question to you - Do you assert that police officers in the United States never commit criminal acts, and never violate people's rights?

- Chris

Jeff White

July 9, 2003, 10:07 PM

Chris,
I already have said that I know there are bad officers and I have first hand knowledge of this. There are bad peope in all professions. Police work is by no means exempt.

There are plenty of bad gunowners.....plenty of threads about them here too. But we all sure get upset when the antis paint us all with that brush. It's no different for cops, we get upset when we are all painted with the brush soiled by the bad ones among us.

Jeff

JohnKSa

July 9, 2003, 10:08 PM

I'm not trying to knock LEO's. Some are good, some are bad. Some are good but part of very bad systems. I do wonder why the endless cut-n-paste from what appears to be a memorial board, noting killings that go back many months or years.

Yeah,

What's the deal with that? Also, they are posted without any amplifying comments which might explain what the poster finds relevant to the theme of this board.

Maybe it's just a post count thing???

2nd Amendment

July 9, 2003, 10:09 PM

I ask again sir, do you have first hand knowledge that this is going on?

Yes, as a witness in a trial where an individual was framed by the police because he peed in a county officials Cheerios once too often. The fact he happened to be a member of the ICVM made him an even easier target. Start screaming "Militia Nut" and "sex fiend" and he's instantly public enemy number one. Fortunately the government thug in question was too incompetent to carry it off and the victim in question was smart enough, and wealthy enough, to surrender and fight it out in court.

And in the end? Nobody who set him up got charged. So, even though he "won" his reputation remained sullied and the real "criminals" walked. Nice, eh?

Do you guys think that there should be a general amnesty and we should open the prison gates?

What does this have to do with a situation where two men are dead and the truth will never be known? There was no trial and without a decision by a jury of ones peers any charge is nothing more than rumor and innuendo. Rumor and innuendo which sheep alays tend to believe because the "authorities" would never lie...until it happens to them. And had it never happened before do you think people would be paranoid about it happening?

Do you live in Zimbabwe or the USA

We live in the US, and hope to keep it from becoming a Zimbabwe.

Now let me ask you, do you think that in the event our government does drop off the edge into a dictatorship of whatever form they will come for you under the banner of prosecuting you for defending the Constitution and BoR? Or will they label you with something distasteful to be certain public opinion is knee-jerk on their side? We know that answer, we see some versions of it happening now and THAT is why a situation like this forces any thinking person to ask "What if...". And, once again, we'll never know for sure.

JShirley

July 9, 2003, 10:12 PM

Don't know, John. I'm trying to figure this one out, myself...

Chris Rhines

July 9, 2003, 10:31 PM

I already have said that I know there are bad officers and I have first hand knowledge of this. Glad we agree. There are people both in your profession and outside it who would not.

It's no different for cops, we get upset when we are all painted with the brush soiled by the bad ones among us. I don't recall ever doing this. I do recall saying that we should not allow emotional stories of cops gunned down in the line of duty to make us squeamish about aggressively challenging police corruption and civil rights abuses.

- Chris

Jeff White

July 9, 2003, 10:40 PM

2nd Amendment,

Your friend was aquitted. So the system worked. Did he seek civil remedy for the malicious prosecution? And because this happened to your friend, that means that all prosecutions are political frame ups? Once again, the big brush comes out.

Do you guys think that there should be a general amnesty and we should open the prison gates?

What does this have to do with a situation where two men are dead and the truth will never be known? There was no trial and without a decision by a jury of ones peers any charge is nothing more than rumor and innuendo. Rumor and innuendo which sheep alays tend to believe because the "authorities" would never lie...until it happens to them. And had it never happened before do you think people would be paranoid about it happening?

This has nothing to do with the situation that started the thread. But a lot to do with the general attitude that the police go around framing people who have the wrong views that is so prevalent in this thread.

Now let me ask you, do you think that in the event our government does drop off the edge into a dictatorship of whatever form they will come for you under the banner of prosecuting you for defending the Constitution and BoR? Or will they label you with something distasteful to be certain public opinion is knee-jerk on their side? We know that answer, we see some versions of it happening now and THAT is why a situation like this forces any thinking person to ask "What if...". And, once again, we'll never know for sure.

Of course they won't prosecute anyone for protecting the constitution, they will prented to rever it just like they do now.

Let's not forget who is responsible for this mess. It's not the police. It's not the girls who complained, it's Scott Allen Woodring. It doesn't matter if the charges against him were adjudicated by a jury of his peers. He had his chance for that. He could have went with the officers who initially tried to arrest him. He could have given up anytime during the 40 hour standoff. His side of the story would have been told, just as your friend's was. But for whatever reason, he chose to fight. I don't know the specifics of the charges against him, I doubt if anyone posting here does. But if it were your daughter who made the complaint, wouldn't you want it investigated? If the investigation uncovered enough evidence to warrant the filing of charges, wouldn't you want those charges to be filed? So what makes the alleged victim any different?

As soon as we decide that it's ok to resist by force then we've torn down the piers holding up the rule of law and replaced them with the rule of force. Do you think we've reached the stage where that's necessary?

My questions to you are; Is Scott Woodring a freedom fighter who died fighting an oppressive government? Or is Trooper Marshall a hero who died trying to take a felony suspect into custody? Or were they both hapless dupes who died because we have a corrupt system of justice?

Jeff

Intune

July 9, 2003, 11:32 PM

He is the only one in the house. He is not shooting at anything that moves outside. What he IS doing is defying a police order. Oh, oh. Instant “dirtbag” status. Did they look at the store tape? They had 40 hours. That wasn’t the point anymore though, was it? The DIRTBAG DEFIED a police order. Was there any “put down the rifle, Scott. Nobody’s gonna come in and hurt you.” negotiating going on? You know, lie to him and put him at ease so he’ll be easier to kill, oops, capture. Was the police officer’s life worth 41 hours? Scott’s obviously wasn’t. Why not wait him out? Klieg lights and a ring of troopers, he darn sure isn’t going anywhere. Was it a “we’ve waited long enough on this police-order-defying-dirtbag” moment? Or was it a “we can’t just stand around and let him get away with this kind of defiance or every dirtbag citizen will be pulling this crap” moment? How much patience is a life worth? If it’s 40 hours then by God let’s crank out another Federal law so every citizen dirtbag knows what to expect from our sworn to protect and serve employees. I’ll come out after 39:45 just in case our watches aren’t synchro’d (hate to give good cause for a killin’ don’tchaknow) so you can put your full weight on one knee on the back of my neck & cinch the cuffs on good & tight. After all, I KNEW better than to DEFY.

No, this wasn’t a Waco moment, this was worse. No, ahem, “hostages” to “save.”
:rolleyes:

2nd Amendment

July 9, 2003, 11:34 PM

My "friend"(that might be too strong a word but nevermind) found some measure of justice because he had considerable money as well as connections outside the immediate area. He sought no civil case because of the additional cost. As such the justice he got is tempered by the fact there will always be those who say "Look at the perv, nut, insert epithet of your choice..." Not exactly a choice outcome.

Regardless, I am not painting with a broad brush. I'm noting the fact that people do some of these things out of fear because it DOES happen and it can cost everything you have to win...and maybe just a wee bit more than you have. As for who is responsible? We'll never know if it was the police, a girl who filed a false report, or Woodring for being what he was accused of. That is my point for finding the label "dirtbag" unacceptable. He was accused, nothing more, but the attitude of much of the public is to hang 'em high. Charged equals guilty.

Is Scott Woodring a freedom fighter who died fighting an oppressive government?

Most likely not.

Or is Trooper Marshall a hero who died trying to take a felony suspect into custody?

Quite possible, even if the charges were bogus.

Or were they both hapless dupes who died because we have a corrupt system of justice?

And there's the most likely possibility of all today.

hammer4nc

July 9, 2003, 11:37 PM

Guys,

Latest update is they couldn't find a body in the ashes...apparently he escaped. They just put out multi-state alert for him.

Erik

July 9, 2003, 11:38 PM

The posts relating the murder of officers executing or supporting traditional warrant serving cases are clearly a reaction to the more prevelant posts decrying no-knock warrants. At least that is my take on it.

---

Guys like this and the outcome are the reason no-knocks exist. Too bad he coudn't have been put down before he was afforded the opportunity to murder.

Intune

July 9, 2003, 11:45 PM

“Too bad he coudn't have been put down…”
:what:

Well, now’s your chance. Except that NOW he knows they’re coming to kill him. The ultimate prey, eh?

JShirley

July 9, 2003, 11:51 PM

"The posts relating the murder of officers executing or supporting traditional warrant serving cases are clearly a reaction to the more prevelant posts decrying no-knock warrants. At least that is my take on it."

This poster has been posting deaths of officers from all sorts of criminal activity, not just traditional warrant service.

John
DFTT

Intune

July 9, 2003, 11:53 PM

----------------------------------
The Associated Press
----------------------------------

MUSKEGON, Mich. -- The deposed founder of the Michigan Militia plans to hold a "Third Continental Congress" to be ready to take over the country in the event the government collapses.

Norman Olson said he hopes the three-day meeting in Missouri this month will draw representatives from paramilitary groups across the United States.

"(Our) Congress will meet to discuss the crisis in America being caused by the present government, which patriots generally agree is corrupt and out of control," Olson said in a prepared statement.

"The goal of the Congress is to find solutions without having to go to war," he said. "Millions of people are being tyrannized and oppressed by the federal government."

One of the options the group plans to discuss includes the formation of "Continental Army under a Congressional Committee for Safety," Olson said.

Scott Woodring of Newaygo County, a member of the Michigan Militia, said he plans to attend the Oct. 28 meeting in Harrison, Mo.

Woodring earlier this year ran for the post of Dayton Township supervisor in rural Newaygo County on an anti-government platform modeled after the Freemen of Montana. He took about 10 percent of the Aug. 6 primary vote.

" We're going to meet and discuss what issues are most important to the nation as a whole and attempt to reach a consensus," Woodring said. "If we do, we'll formally petition the president and Congress to redress the issues."

Militia members in other states have run into legal trouble for trying to set up their own judicial and banking systems. Woodring earlier this year ran a newspaper ad promoting the "Committee for a De Jure Township."

The ad said that the purpose of the meeting was to talk about organizing the township for "judicial and other purposes."

Angela Moore, office administrator for the Newaygo County Prosecutor's office, said her staff received numerous calls from Dayton Township residents worried about Woodring's organizing.

But neither Woodring nor other freeman types in the county are breaking any laws.

"They've made themselves known, but they've done nothing illegal or dangerous," Moore said.

But if any militia organization tries to set up its own "justice system," authorities say they will step in.

"We're hearing from these people more and more," Moore said. "They're not breaking any laws, but they're annoying."

Page 1C --Four States Section.
Monday, October 14, 1996
The Joplin Globe

Rule 714.3- Never be annoying. We have time.

:barf:

Jeff White

July 10, 2003, 12:15 AM

Intune,
Nowhere has any court found that you have a legal right to resist arrest. You resist in court. That's the way the system works. Might as well not have any mechanism to enforce the law if you are going to permit anyone suspected of a crime to use force to prevent their arrest.

Did they look at the store tape?

I don't know, do you? Someone reviewed the statements and evidence and decided that there was a case. It's been my experience that prosecutors don't like to take iffy cases to court. I don't know how they do things where that happened, but here, someone would have looked at the tape before a decision was made to arrest him.

Was there any “put down the rifle, Scott. Nobody’s gonna come in and hurt you.” negotiating going on?

According to the accounts that were posted here there was.

Why not wait him out? Klieg lights and a ring of troopers, he darn sure isn’t going anywhere. Was it a “we’ve waited long enough on this police-order-defying-dirtbag” moment? Or was it a “we can’t just stand around and let him get away with this kind of defiance or every dirtbag citizen will be pulling this crap” moment? How much patience is a life worth?

Only the incident commander who authorized the entry can answer that. I'm sure he is being harder on himself over it then you possibly could be. You don't really believe that the desired outcome was to kill the suspect, do you? The desired outcome was to arrest Scott Woodring without injuring him or sustaining any casualties to the officers or bystanders and with minimal property damage. As it happened, an officer is dead, Woodring has apparently escaped and the house, home to Woodring's wife is destroyed. The officer in command at the scene made a decision to effect entry based on some information he had. Maybe they thought Woodring was asleep. Maybe he told the negotiator something that made them believe they had to end this now. I don't know, you don't know. But if it's proven that they effected entry for no more of a reason then it was time to go home, I'll join you in demanding criminal and civil penalties for those involved. I just don't believe that's the way things went down.

Jeff

Jeff White

July 10, 2003, 12:29 AM

Intune,

Rule 714.3- Never be annoying. We have time.

Are you inferring that the entire incident was a set up in retaliation for something that happened nearly seven years ago?

Jeff

Intune

July 10, 2003, 12:52 AM

No. I was showing that he was already “annoying” some in the prosecutors office years ago and “inferring” that he probably became an even larger annoyance to those in power in the subsequent years. Another inference was that they didn’t take too kindly to it. It wasn’t the prosecutors house that burned to the ground. Was it?

Jeff, what this guy did was wrong whether the station incident was a crime or not. Come to my house with a warrant and I’ll tell you about the G27 on my strong side and ask you how you want to go about this civilly. Hell, you could call me on the phone and tell me to come to the station. My father was a judge and one of my bro’s an attorney. I know where this kind of stuff is to be resolved and it’s not in a conflagration. My beef is with the timing of the assault. This guy is not my kind of hero, yet… Not to be "put down" either.

Intune

July 10, 2003, 01:09 AM

Re: the incident commander- "I'm sure he is being harder on himself over it then you possibly could be."

Don't count on that. If Scott is a "dirtbag" what is this guy? A bumbling fool? An incompetent dotard? The finest LEO mind in that region? Perchance his judgment was clouded? He had been defied after all, and by one solitary citizen. Gotta rankle a true professional. Okay, a little sarcasm snuck in there. ;) He better of had a great reason to go in that house or his butt should be guarding the motorpool in the near future.

Jeff White

July 10, 2003, 01:25 AM

Intune,
As I stated earlier, I don't know why they attempted entry. I do know a little bit about policies and training and how those decisions are made. A large agency like the Michigan State Police most likely has chapters in their policy manual with approved guidlines on how to deal with these situations. These policies are extensivly reviewed to ensure that the safety of everyone involved especially the suspect is paramount. Once the experts in tactical operations are through, legal gets a shot at them. Once the lawyers are sure that they don't open the agency and it's officers up to criminal or civil charges they become policy. These policies are constantly updated to take in lessons learned from other operations and operations conducted by other agencies. They are also changed to reflect court decisions.

I have no idea if the entry was within MSP policy. Usually you can count on very professional and disciplined conduct from a tactical unit. Unlike the myth that is often posted here and in other places, young hotdogs are not desirable members of such units. The liability is such that you only give this assignment to mature, disciplined officers. A state level unit will have a larger number of officers to draw from for this assignment then most local or county units, so you can infer that they may be even a tiny bit more disciplined and professional. They train to end the situation with no injuries to anyone. While it's recognized that sometime the suspect won't permit it to end that way, that's always the goal.

This time it didn't work out that way. Scoot Woodring apparently escaped. And no, he shouldn't be put down. That kind of talk made a cute line for Sean Connery in The Untouchables but it's not the way things should be done, and I think a majority of police officers would agree. The days of kill a cop, never make it to jail are long gone, if they were ever really here.

Jeff

Intune

July 10, 2003, 01:38 AM

Gotta crash Jeff, enjoyed it. Hope some more facts about this come out, not a good situ anyway with one dead. You did say Scoot on purpose... Didn't you? Thanks for the smile!!:cool:

Justin

July 10, 2003, 02:59 AM

Due to thread drift, this one's going over to the L&P forum.

Travis McGee

July 10, 2003, 03:06 AM

The cop was killed by "small caliber" bulllets, and despite what the PD spokesman said, I have seen pics of the cops at his house with M-4 or CAR-15 type weapons.

It's very possible the cop was killed in a manner similar to what happened in Lubbock TX last year. The homeowner got pissed at his old lady, and in her absence threw her stuff on his lawn. Natch, the SWAT team was dispatched.

A SWAT guy had an accidental discharge, and the backyard SWAT guys had a several hundred round exchange with the front yard SWAT guys. I kid you not, this was in all the papers in great detail...after the fact.

The wounded homeowner was arrested and charged with murder one for killing a cop. Lucky for him, he owned no .223 weapons, and the dead cop was killed by a .223 (like here in Michigan). After a week locked up, he was let go. His home was wrecked by the barrage of bullets. "SORRY!" (not!)

The point is, the cops lied through their teeth to pin the cross-fire killing on the innocent homeowner, who never touched a gun. If he had owned a .223 , he'd be on death row. Food for thought.

BTW, in my novel ENEMIES FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC, (going to the printer tomorrow after 3 years of writing) the bad guy tactical unit has an SOP of leaving drop guns to connect their dead victims to out of state "militias". This way, the anti gun and anti "militia" media will lap up their version of the killings. "Oh, he was a MILITIA gun nut! He was trying to kill the cops!" It plays very well in TV-land when "assault rifles" are pulled out of the ashes. Especially when the "assault rifle" is traced to some militia yahoo in Idaho. Easy as ABC-123.

brownie0486

July 10, 2003, 08:27 AM

Intune :

You know my take on the guy from earlier posts. Ya, I'm the one calling him a dirtbag, and I explained why he was called such.

He resisted arrest and got an officer killed for HIS actions. HIS actions were the reason they were there to begin with. HIS actions caused the standoff and ultimate death of an officer. HIS actions dictated the LE's responses.

Sounds like a dirtbag to me.

Chris Rhines: No response to your feelings comment and my reply to you?
Guess you can see how some of us here feel just like you at times hey?

"I don't recall ever doing this. I do recall saying that we should not allow emotional stories of cops gunned down in the line of duty to make us squeamish about aggressively challenging police corruption and civil rights abuses."

And how about all those emotional stories reported here about police corruption and civil rights abuses? Had any thoughts about people getting "squeamish" reading all the police corruption articles posted as well? Or is that more to your liking and in line with your thought process?

Good for one, good for all I would think unless you don't believe in fair play and an open forum and prefer to hear nothing but anti-establishment/police rhetoric day in and day out as is posted here continuously.

I read those posts and take no issues with their right to post. Why are you questioning anyones motives when the shoe is on the other foot? Biased against the LE community in general?

Inquiring minds want to know how you can claim someone is emotionally charging the forum with pro LE threads but not the same for the anti crowd here.

Brownie

hammer4nc

July 10, 2003, 08:41 AM

Could it be that recurring discussions of official malfeasance, result from officials' unwillingness to address and/or correct same? Previous posting by brownie excellent case in point. Posting 10, or 100 more articles from officerdown.com, somehow seen as "fair play"? Us vs. them personified.

Intune

July 10, 2003, 08:44 AM

House burns after standoff

Police find man's backpack, but no trace of him
July 9, 2003

BY LAURA POTTS AND CHRIS CHRISTOFF
FREE PRESS STAFF WRITERS

FREMONT -- Police were uncertain Tuesday night whether a man who barricaded himself inside a house during a confrontation Monday that left a State Police trooper dead was alive.

Scott Woodring, 41, was believed to be in the home when police fired a stun grenade into the house Tuesday afternoon. Shortly afterward, the house went up in flames and burned down.

But two hours after the fire, officials found a backpack filled with food and ammunition about three-quarters of a mile from the wreckage, Michigan State Police communications officer Tracy Pardo said.

Woodring's wife identified the backpack as his, Pardo said.

Police searched the rubble late Tuesday afternoon but found no trace of Woodring, who lived in a rural area near Fremont.

State Police Inspector Barry Getzen said he assumed Woodring might still be in the basement, though he would not say whether he was dead. Getzen said police fired percussion rounds in the house to temporarily disable anyone inside because they did not believe Woodring would come out. They believed he may have had supplies to last a long time in a standoff.

Getzen said percussion rounds are capable of starting a fire, which he called unintended consequences. (Emph mine)

State Trooper Kevin Marshall, 33, died after he was shot as he and other State Police officers tried to enter the home Monday. Police said Woodring threatened police from Hesperia when they tried to serve him a felony warrant for soliciting a minor for immoral purposes.

They said Woodring fired shots at them as they tried to negotiate with him, prompting the State Police to rush the house.

Gov. Jennifer Granholm ordered flags at state buildings to be lowered to half staff Tuesday to honor Marshall. Flags will remain lowered until sundown of the day of Marshall's funeral, Granholm said.

"Michigan's citizens need only to see the regal blue of a state trooper's uniform to see a true hero in their midst," Granholm said.

Woodring was known for his outspoken antigovernment views, and had ties to a Michigan militia unit until he was kicked out. Tom Wayne, executive officer of the Michigan Militia Wolverine Corps, said Woodring was among a group who professed Christian Identity views, which promote white supremacy, anti-Semitism and self-rule government.

"He was misguided in a lot of his stuff. We used to be friends," Wayne said. "I tried to take him out of this stuff, but it was too ingrained with these other clowns.

"He was a nice guy."

Woodring modeled his beliefs after the Freemen of Montana, a Christian Identity sect that made national headlines in 1996 when they held off federal FBI agents in an 81-day standoff in Montana.

That year, Woodring ran unsuccessfully for the post of Dayton Township supervisor in rural Newaygo County on an antigovernment platform modeled after the Freemen.

Woodring's brother, Doug Woodring, 35, said Scott Woodring didn't trust authorities.

"To him, the authorities were a threat to his safety," Doug Woodring said. "He's a very loving person; he would never intentionally hurt anyone. The only way anyone would get hurt is if he felt threatened."

Rich and Ruth Lucas, neighbors of Woodring, said he was helpful, plowing their driveway after winter snowstorms. They said he had once worked at Gerber, a baby food manufacturer, but was unemployed.

"He would help you in any way he can, but he is very, very antigovernment," Rich Lucas said.

Intune

July 10, 2003, 08:49 AM

Suspect missing after standoff; cops are baffled

Police search torched house; no body is found
July 10, 2003

BY LAURA POTTS
FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER

FREMONT -- Under the watch of dozens of cops who believed he had killed one of their own, Scott Woodring -- amazingly -- slipped away.

That was the only conclusion left for authorities Wednesday after they had nearly finished sifting through the charred remains of Woodring's home, where police had stood watch for most of two days before it went up in flames.

Woodring, 40, should be considered armed and dangerous, Michigan State Police Inspector Barry Getzen said Wednesday afternoon.

"We have no idea when or how he exited that building," Getzen said, adding that police have found no evidence of tunnels or barracks rumored to have been built there by Woodring, who friends and acquaintances said espoused antigovernment beliefs and was equipped for living on the run.

On Tuesday evening, his family identified a backpack -- containing food, ammunition and survival materials -- as Woodring's.

Hesperia police say Woodring threatened them when they attempted to serve him with a felony warrant for soliciting a minor for immoral purposes. Monday, as State Trooper Kevin Marshall and other officers tried to enter Woodring's home, shots were fired from inside, police said. Marshall, 33, was shot four times with a "small-caliber, high-velocity type round," Getzen said. That finding dispelled reports that Marshall may have been killed by a bullet fired by another officer, Getzen said.

Woodring's family members have maintained his innocence on the initial felony charge and have said he would not turn violent unless threatened. Woodring feared law enforcement and did not trust the government, they said, and they believed the standoff could have been averted if police had allowed the family to help resolve it.

Police continued Wednesday to block roads near where Woodring's house had stood among cornfields, woods and orchards a few miles outside Fremont. Getzen said no one had been in contact with Woodring, including his family, since late Monday afternoon. His wife escaped the home early during the standoff.

Getzen said police have no information suggesting anyone -- including members of a Michigan Militia unit Woodring had been linked to -- was helping Woodring.

A train runs through downtown Fremont, where Woodring, who was unemployed, was a familiar sight on his bike. Next to the tracks, Woodring fed his lifelong fascination of trains, said Rob Zeldenrust, general manager of the Fremont Co-op. The grain elevator and feed and farm supply store is next to the tracks, where trains run from Muskegon to Grand Rapids.

When they attended Fremont High, Zeldenrust said, Woodring carried model trains in his pockets and created imaginary cargo lists.

Intune

July 10, 2003, 09:00 AM

"Getzen said police fired percussion rounds in the house to temporarily disable anyone inside because they did not believe Woodring would come out. They believed he may have had supplies to last a long time in a standoff. "

I hereby state to all LEOs that I only have supplies for 24 hours. I will release the cat, dog and bird unharmed so you don't use them as an excuse for fodder. Please give me one last shot at life before you raze my humble abode. Never hurts to ask one last time, eh? Sorry about all that Freeman, independant citizen stuff. Don't know what got into me. Oh, who's AR-15 is this? It came through the back window and I already have a shotgun and 30-30. Thanks for thinking of me though.

brownie0486

July 10, 2003, 10:03 AM

hammer4nc :

It's not an us vs. them thing with me. I was merely showing all the anti establishment posts here and wondering why the people who have no problem with those types of posts are having such a hard time with the articles from the officer down site.

Is it fair play for people here to continuously post the anti police/bad cop stories and then complain when others post about deeds performed or officers killed doing their job?

Seems the ones who are questioning why he is posting those articles are the ones who have more of an issue with the us vs them thang. They apparently do not like the idea of someone continuously posting about a cop getting killed or injured.

As stated by one in particular individual, he certainly would not want those postings to take anybodys minds off the injustices by LE's which are posted continuously here. I question his motives in questioning why anyone posts anything about LE injuries/deaths but has not come forward to do the same relative all the anti-LE postings here.

He still hasn't answered the question posed to him, think it is pretty obvious that he has the us vs them mentality here and doesn't like it when someone posts anything about the opposite end of the spectrum.

Is it because those posts may just bring thee threads here back to some sense of objectivity?

Brownie

Jeff White

July 10, 2003, 11:56 AM

We find that maybe the rush to judgement may have been premature. The biggest thing that upsets me about this thread was the immediate posting of statements condemning the police and elevating Woodring to hero/freedom fighter status. Now as the story dribbles out, it becomes more and more apparent that this was not a case of gross police misconduct.

It's also looking like Woodring may have either set the fire himself or at least used it to facilitate his escape.

Lets reevaluate the situation based on what we know now:

Woodring's family members have maintained his innocence on the initial felony charge and have said he would not turn violent unless threatened. Woodring feared law enforcement and did not trust the government, they said, and they believed the standoff could have been averted if police had allowed the family to help resolve it.

So knowing this the police sent local officers who Woodring was at least likely to be familiar with if he didn't in fact know them to pick him up on the warrant. Hardly sounds like they were trying to set him up for execution for his anti government views. Seems to me like the initial attempt to serve the warrant was reasonable. Anyone disagree?

After Woodring refused to comply with the arrest warrant and barricaded himself in the house. The local police called for assistance from the state police tactical unit. Knowing the situation was bigger then they had the resources to handle, they called for assistance. Again I think this was the right call. Does anyone here think that they should have backed off, told the prosecution and the alleged victim that "Scott doesn't want to come in now, guess there isn't anything more to do." So the state police came in, took charge of the situation, established inner and outer perimeters and started talking. They talked for 40 hours. Then:

Police said Woodring fired two shots at the officers while they tried to negotiate with him.

Again Woodring, not the police escalated the situation.

Several hours into the standoff, police helped Woodring's wife escape the home, leaving him alone inside.

The reports are unclear as to if Woodring let his wife leave the house on her own or if the SWAT team got her out without his knowledge. But they suggest that he wasn't willing to let her leave. Who knows?

So at this stage of the operation we have Woodring barricaded in the home, firing at the police and negotiations are going nowhere. The following is speculation, based on how things are done here. I don't know if that's what happened there, but most tactical operations are conducted by certain SOPs regardless of who is conducting them, because these techniques work:

Behind the scenes investigators are trying to find out everything they can about Scott Woodring. They are also gathering any information on the inside of the house etc. This information is then given to the negotiator and SWAT team so they can more effectively end the standoff with no injuries. So I'm sure the negotiator and incident commander knew that:

Woodring was known for his outspoken antigovernment views, and had ties to a Michigan militia unit until he was kicked out. Tom Wayne, executive officer of the Michigan Militia Wolverine Corps, said Woodring was among a group who professed Christian Identity views, which promote white supremacy, anti-Semitism and self-rule government.

This would have figured into the mix only to help the negotiator know how to talk to him, what buttons to push, which ones not to. And for the incident commander to be able to plan how to take him into custody without injury to anyone.

Woodring modeled his beliefs after the Freemen of Montana, a Christian Identity sect that made national headlines in 1996 when they held off federal FBI agents in an 81-day standoff in Montana.

They believed he may have had supplies to last a long time in a standoff.

At some point this information and the experience of the negotiator in dealing with Woodring led to the decision being made that the only way to end this was to attempt an entry and to seize him. At which point distraction devices were fired into the house and the team effected entry. A word on the use of distraction devices in police operations. They aren't used to disorient the suspect so he's an easy target to shoot. They are used to disorient him enough so that the officers can be on him and physically take him into custody before he has time to react and force the officers to shoot him in self defense. Obviously something went wrong. Perhaps Woodring heard them approaching and was ready for them. I don't know. I doubt if anyone on the forum knows. We do know that he was ready for them and that he murdered Trooper Marshall.

Marshall, 33, was shot four times with a "small-caliber, high-velocity type round," Getzen said. That finding dispelled reports that Marshall may have been killed by a bullet fired by another officer, Getzen said.[QUOTE]

Travis, I guess that settles who shot Trooper Marshall. Could be that the M4 type weapons you saw were all left on the inner perimeter and the entry team only used handguns, subguns or shotguns. Could also mean that no members of the entry team fired their weapon.

The distraction devices may have started the fire or Woodring may have started the fire. SOP in most agencies is to have fire equipment standing by if you are going to use munitions that may cause fires. But there is now no doubt that Woodring used the cover of the fire to escape.

[QUOTE]But two hours after the fire, officials found a backpack filled with food and ammunition about three-quarters of a mile from the wreckage, Michigan State Police communications officer Tracy Pardo said.

Woodring's wife identified the backpack as his, Pardo said.

Now we have him running loose. Were there mistakes made? Maybe, but you can bet there will be a very detailed after action review to find out what happened and what (if anything) can be learned so that this doesn't happen again. I say maybe and if anything can be learned because sometimes in a situation like that you can do everything right and still lose.

Perhaps the reason we get so upset with the immediate condemnation and almost cheering for the bad guy is because we know a little something about how these things are done. So some of the theories are pretty crazy. This is almost like one of you computer gurus out there having a big disaster that shuts down half of the internet and me speculating on the hows and whys of it and blaming it on your (choose one) a.[B/] incompetence [B] b. overzealousness c. hotdog attitude d. just plain evil intent.

Most people in the United States are served by good, professional police officers. There are some bad ones out there. And if you research the posts of any peace officer on this forum, I think you'll find that when threads on police malfeasance, incompetance or plain illegal activity show up, we weigh in on the side of justice, when the facts come in. Bad officers tarnish all of us.

The information on how the system works is out there. There aren't a lot of deep dark secrets. Do some research or ask someone who might have some insight into how these things work before you rush to judgement.

Intune, glad my typo made you smile. Unfortunatley it was a typo, my brain wasn't working qiuckly enough to think that up at the time of night I posted it.

Jeff

Alan Smithiee

July 10, 2003, 12:18 PM

when the Jews were rounded up they were rounded up under warrents and under existing German Law.

just because it was done under the law doesn't make it right.

we had a student die next town over a couple of years ago, they busted him on a obscure firearms law (he didn't have the right permit), into the local lockup, found dead the next morning hanging in his cell, some think things were "arranged" (I think it was suicide)

so we have a man dead because the police enforced a law most of us here think was wrong.

and before people start thinking I'm anti cop, I spent some time last night explaining to the lady next door why cops don't always have the option of non lethal response to a Suicide by Cop (had an attempted one the other night, guy with a long history of instability and police run ins, came at the cop with a large knife, cop shot him in the arm, he kept comeing, shot to COM, currenty in critical condition , Office unharmed, she gave me the "they should have used Pepper Spray/Batons/Stun gun argument. I tried to explain the reality to her.)

the problem isin't just the bad cops. the problem is those in positions of athority who issue the orders and pick those who lead.

"We'll make Officer So and So head of the SWAT Squad, he's a very very VERY anti gun and thinks all gun owners are trying to kill every cop"

THAT kinda of decision costs lives on all side is these issues

Travis McGee

July 10, 2003, 12:43 PM

Jeff White:

All I am saying is BE SKEPTICAL. The perp sounds like a nutbar dirtbag. This, in a perverse way, tends to make it easier for the police to cover up an AD killing by one of their own...if that happened. IF that happened.

In the Lubbock case, cops and DAs lied through their teeth for a solid week to frame an innocent man for murder one. If the innocent homeowner had owned a .223, he'd be on death row and the cops would have skated.

If you were a police chief or DA, and you had a choice, all things being equal, and the evidence being, shall we say "malleable" (especially after the home "accidentally" burns to the ground) between pinning the death on a good cop who had an AD, or a militia nutburger, what would you do?

Ruin a good cops career, or pin it on a militia nutbar?

In Lubbock they tried for a solid week to railroad an innocent man. Only his having no rifle under .30 saved him.

I am only saying BE SKEPTICAL. Evidence can be "massaged" when you control the crime scene.

(This is a big part of my book BTW, where a truly evil "special unit" goes off the deep end in nailing "right wing militia gun nut kooks. It's very easy to do, when the dead "gun nut" is someone the media already wants to hate, and they "find" illegal assault rifles etc in the ashes.)

Chris Rhines

July 10, 2003, 09:17 PM

Brownie -

I don't generally read your posts. But since you asked, no, I don't feel anything of the sort.

- Chris

Ryder

July 11, 2003, 02:32 PM

Nowhere has any court found that you have a legal right to resist arrest.

I believe this to be mistaken. I haven't the time to research this right now but I do recall that there is a Texas statute which provides for lethal resistance against an illegal arrest by an officer of the law. Anybody know what I am talking about :confused:

In the spirit of bridging the understanding between the two groups I'd like to say: From what I read here the "authorities' among us believe that the unavoidable consequence of death should be justification for complying with their demands? It doesn't work that way. People do take a stand for rights when they've done no wrong. That's just natural, get used to it, when you make a mistake consequences can and often do arise. You get so used to arresting people that you think it's no big deal. Just doing your job? Loss of freedom is the ultimate penalty. So an arrest is a penalty being incurred before a judgement of guilt. Submission is easy if we are guilty, hard if we are not.

Since the facts surrounding the warrant have come out it makes more sense to me. This sexual improprieties against minors thing has been a witch hunt for far too long. It kicked off with the best of intentions back in the 80's but got way out of hand thanks to the politically correct 90's. Who would expect justice to arise from such a railroading? I've got a lot of faith in judges but prosecutors are too well practiced at getting convictions using unethical tactics. The sentences are extremely stiff, if your life is to be ruined anyway then what's to lose? If one makes all decisions based on not having to suffer future regrets then dying is certainly one of the most assured ways to achieve that.

It's not just a case of bad laws, the potential penalties themselves are as much to blame. In other words if the penalty for shoplifting differs no less than that for murder then people will murder to get away with it. This is the reason we hear the words rape and murder used in the same breath so often nowadays. Why leave a witness? Why submit to arrest?

Y'all can post as many dead cop stories as you want as far as I'm concerned. Most of us read them the first time around though. It is more than a little odd to read them again at such a later date. You could try a search before posting one, or just stick to current events, that should have you appearing a little less strange to others for posting these :)

brownie0486

July 11, 2003, 03:29 PM

Ryder :

Have you considered the possibility that the guy was actually guilty and his life would be ruined when the evidence came out?, and maybe thats why he resisted?

Instead of your ponderings about he may have been innocent and stood his ground as some injustice was being perpetrated agaisnt him for whatever reason? by whoever?

Death is always avoidable, well at least most of the time unless you are of the type who believes there is a vast conspiracy of police and prosecutors in this country who are outto get everyone for anything.

You mention you trust the judges but not the prosecutors, you do realize the judge would have had to see the statements from the girls and any and all other evidence to support the warrant right? So a judge decided there was enough evidence to issue the warrant.

Sexual improprieties? They happen all the time, more than we care to know. Look at the priests in the news, pedophiles, molesters, sex offenders who are registered etc. There are many out there preying on the general public. I'm not so sure these are witch hunts when the clergy admit guilt, as well as the church for looking the other way at the evidence before them over all those years.

I don't believe there are witch hunts by prosecutors or judges on a regular basis, but of course it does happen as in all things.

I don't believe there is an unavoidable consequence of death and this "People do take a stand for rights when they've done no wrong." would be just fine, but he statred shooting at the cops outside, is that taking a stand that we should admire or tolerate?

Where do his rights end? How about when his actions affects my rights. I don;t believe he has the right to shoot at police if in so doing he then is deemed taking mine [ as a police officer and human being ] away from me.

His shooting at the cops endangered the officers and the general public, what about their rights. There is a right and wrong way to take the "stand". Shooting at officers will never be considered one of the right ways to make your stand without the potential consequence of death in so doing.

"Who would expect justice to arise from such a railroading"--what injustice in this case? Are saying you think he was being railroaded.

So, lets assume that was the case [ which I don't think you will find to be true, but for the sake of argument ], he was being railroaded. Fine, does that mean you are right to attempt to murder others affectingthe judges order? It isn;t the cops who issued the warrant ot looked at the evidence to support the warrant, so how are they, by extension guilty of railroading him? If thats true, then does he have the right to attempt to murder them becuase someone else is railroading him and they were following orders of the court?

People seem to really have a problem here with their rights being violated by others. How about the rights of the police officers as well? After all, they have the same rights don't they? Wasn't this dirtbag violating their rights by his actions?

The one sided theories and conspiracy assumptions I see posted here against the LE community in general give ponderance as to who actually is being objective in their observations.

Brownie

TheeBadOne

July 11, 2003, 03:48 PM

http://www.woodtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=1356564

http://woodtv.static.worldnow.com/images/1356564_BG1.jpg
(Warren-AP-July, 11, 2003, 11:00 a.m.) Law enforcement officers saluted and church bells tolled as the funeral Mass for a slain state police trooper got under way this morning.

The service in Warren is being held for Trooper Kevin Marshall. The 33-year-old married father of two was a native of neighboring Sterling Heights. Eight troopers carried Marshall's casket inside the church.

Marshall was shot Monday afternoon when his tactical team stormed a western Michigan house during a stand-off that began the night before. The eight-year state police veteran died later that day during surgery.

Scott Allen Woodring managed to slip out of his home and past dozens of police officers who'd surrounded him during the 42-hour stand-off. He's still at large.

A memorial fund has been set up for Marshall's two children. Donations can be sent to Todd Pappas in care of Comerica Bank PO Box 75,000 Detroit 48275 - 2413. Checks should be made out to the Kevin Marshall Memorial Fund.

Cosmoline

July 11, 2003, 04:52 PM

The old common law rule, modified by many states, is that you can resist an illegal arrest. Whether or not you can use force, let alone deadly force, varies. The traditional rule was that deadly force could only be used if the officer is about to kill you. This would not apply to resisting a warrant to search--you have no right to do that anywhere as far as I know. You can call your lawyer or the judge who issued the warrant to complain, but you can't stop them from searching.

Jeff White

July 11, 2003, 05:24 PM

Ryder,

Can someone be charged with Resisting Arrest in Texas? I don't know, I'm not from there. But I can't imagine how the courts function and anything gets done there if you are permitted to resist arrest. So you're telling me that everyone in jail for any offense in Texas, went in willingly out of the goodness of his or her heart in the interest of having an orderly society? :rolleyes:

The founding fathers were very concerned with limiting the power of the government to interfere with the lives of the citizens. They finally settled on a Bill of Rights that were essentially laws restricting what the government could do. The states added to this when they created their constitutions and their criminal justice procedures. They built checks and balances into the system at all levels. Are there abuses sometimes? Yes. Human beings run the criminal justice system so it will be imperfect.

Do you know how hard it is to get arrested for a crime in most places? Unless a peace officer witnesses you commit the crime, you most likely will not be arrested on the spot. What happens is the victim reports the crime to the police. The police then take the victim's version of events in the form of a statement. Then they seek out other witnesses and attempt to gather physical evidence. If the suspect names you as the criminal, an officer will most likely speak to you (in most cases you aren't under arrest at this point and you don't have to speak with them) and get your side of the story (after advising you of your right not to tell your story and your right to be advised by counsel). At this point, you may or may not be arrested depending on the evidence. If they have you on video tape soliciting the girls at the gas station, you're probably going to be arrested then if the laws of the state your in permit that. If not the entire file will be forwarded to the prosecuting attorney, who will review it and decide if there is sufficient evidence to charge you. Depending on the laws in the state your in, he may or may not have to submit the case to a grand jury. Or he may have to submit it to a judge, who will sign the arrest warrant ordering all peace officers to take you into custody without delay.

George Washington was right when he said that government is force. Which is why we have so many restrictions on when and how the government may use the force. But he didn't say that the government shouldn't be force and all of the founding fathers recognized that there were circumstances where the government would have to use force. So they struck a balance between the government's need to use force in order to ensure domestic tranquility and the right of the citizens to go about their lives free from unreasonable intrusions of government force.

But nowhere did the give anyone the legal right to resist arrest They built enough checks and balances into the system including provisions forbidding the setting of excessive bail and cruel and unusual punishment that they expected people to settle things in court. Not on the street with violence.

People do take a stand for rights when they've done no wrong.

The system provides for them to take a stand when they've done no wrong. In court The system provides them with legal counsel to help them make their stand if they can't afford to hire their own.

That's just natural, get used to it, when you make a mistake consequences can and often do arise.

I'm unclear about this. Who made the mistake?

You get so used to arresting people that you think it's no big deal. Just doing your job?

No it's almost always a big deal. And this is going to really frost you, but I often get a sense of a job well done when I make an arrest. It can be especially satisfying to know that a violent or predatory person is no longer free to harm others due to my work.

Loss of freedom is the ultimate penalty. So an arrest is a penalty being incurred before a judgement of guilt. Submission is easy if we are guilty, hard if we are not.

No, loss of life is the ultimate penalty. But the founders knew that loss of freedom is a terrible penalty and thoughtfully provided for bail so that you can go about your life while you are settling your differences with the state in court. Don't have a job you say, no money...not a problem, many people are released on their own recognisance (a verbal promise to the judge to show up in court when they are supposed to be there) if their crime is too serious. Been accused of a serious crime where ROR isn't possible, there is an entire industry of bail bondsmen who will loan you the money.

What would you propose as an alternative? The government doesn't have a right to compel you to appear in court? The government doesn't have a right to detain you to make certain you appear? You have the right to resist and after you've killed oh just for the sake of arguement,10 officers attempting to arrest you, you are declared the winner and your charges are dismissed? You are tried in absentia and only arrested after conviction? But how would you present your case?

I'm sorry but you have no right to resist arrest. In fact most state constitutions give peace officers the authority to use whatever force is necessary to effect the arrest. If you had the right to resist arrest, there would be no sense having police or courts.

Jeff

Jeff White

July 11, 2003, 06:18 PM

Cosmoline,
How do you know the arrest is illegal? How does the officer know? it's an illegal arrest? Warrants around here aree worded something like: To all peace officers. You are hereby commanded to take John Doe into custody for the crime of ____________ You will bring him before this court without delay (This is paraphrased I don't have a warrant in front of me).

How about warrants that are entered into the computer? Most jurisdictions just have a requirement for the officer to know that the warrant exisits and he is compelled to make the arrest or he could be found in contempt and charged with official misconduct. The officer does not have to have the actual warrant in hand. He just has to know it exists.

So please give me an example of an illegal arrest and how one should resist. I suppose if the authorities showed up to arrest you for a crime that didn't exisit, say breathing untaxed air, you could say that that was an illegal arrest. So give me a practical example of an illegal arrest.

Jeff

benewton

July 11, 2003, 06:34 PM

Brownie

" If you choose to go down fighting you will lose. A prudent person would recognize that fact and act accordingly unless they didn't care about themselves or others they would be affecting by their actions."

The point that you miss is that that will be the effect no matter what he did, guilty or innocent, once the LEO's, followed by the prosecuters, got involved.
On essence, the is no EFFECTIVE defense, in the sense that if you are exonerated, there isn't any cost to your finances or reputation.

Having set up a situation where the person WILL lose, no matter what follows, I think you're a bit hypocritical to claim the merely rolling over will satisfy the situation. It might suit the LEO's point of view better, but it'd not change the actual end result in the least for HIS point of view, except, maybe, for his time of death, and the financial resources left to his kin.

And I ask again, why do you wonder that he chose to fire, assuming that he did, taking the "irresistable force" way out rather than simply rolling over and accepting the "suicide by prison" option?

Ah, but all he had to do was submit, as you say, and things would progress to redress later.

"They" will, I think, come for the registered weapons, sooner rather than later.

And, there are the forms that we all fill out to buy our legal weapons, which, of course, while they must be maintained by the FFL, assuming, of course, that the instant check isn't kept or backed up, doesn't constitute registration.
And, of course, they've no idea who ownes weapons, so perhaps door to door searches are in order?

And we should do what?

'cause if we'd only roll over, all problems would be solved, right?

And I'm still waiting for the "Aw ****" list, promoted by the LEO crowd, to
highlight their mistakes. After all, of you want "glory" for your sacrifice, surely you must admit, with the same level of publicity, to your errors. In particular since, it seems to me, you most often "accident" those unable to resist in any effective manner.

Also, I wonder about the "hero" designation: there seem to be a bit too many around these days, and, live or die, how does doing your job constitute heroism?

As for this particular case, I've not enough information to judge the mess, but I am sure that that published will be crap, and, as usual, regardless, I've no option to do anything about it. As I said, it'll be a "good" shoot, or burn, or whatever, but the person that was pissing off the powers that be, and their employees sent to neutralize him, will be gone, and, after all, isn't it only thing that matters?

But I am sure that my time will come, with luck giving me time to make a choice, but if SWAT works, and the dogs don't, maybe not. Don't know, haven't placed sensors around the place, etc., but I'd rather take one along than die in bed, home or jail.

I do know that, given that I know the "legal" offense, I'd fire before I'd be cuffed.

5' 8.5" isn't all that big, but standing vrs knees is, to my mind.

You, of course, can chart your own course, but I'd ask you how you'd handle an order to collect civilian arms, except that I already know the answer.

hammer4nc

July 11, 2003, 06:54 PM

Anyone have a response to the statement issued by the Woodring family late Wed. night? I don't think its been posted yet. It contains some details about the "standoff" (pre-shooting) that have not been discussed.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.woodtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=1354579&nav=0RceGoqA
Woodring family releases statement
Email to a Friend
Printer Friendly Version

(Fremont, July 9, 2003, 11:43 p.m.) The Woodring family issued a statement today.

The Woodring family statement:

Our sympathy, thoughts, and prayers are with Trooper Kevin Marshall's family.

Before the standoff started, the family feels that the whole ordeal could have been prevented. We know that a family member contacted authorities with specific information on the best way she felt they could have served the original warrant to Scott, where he would be located during daylight hours on July 4th when he would be with family members for support. But, for reasons unknown to us they chose not to use this information.

We find it hard to believe Scott would intentionally harm anyone unless it was from a feeling of self-defense. The statement presented at the news conference this morning would indicated otherwise.

To clarify previous statements about Scott's wife's removal from the home, she wants it known that she left willingly.

We KNOW that Scott did not prevent her from leaving.

The authorities say communication with Scott ceased at approximately 2:30 p.m. Monday, July 7th. Up to that point, family members had direct contact with Scott via cell phones and amateur radio, and he was talking calmly and rationally with us. The authorities were surprised to discover we had been communicating with Scott. Shortly thereafter Scott's telephone number was disabled. The authorities apologized to the family for "ACCIDENTALLY" knocking down Scott's amateur radio tower he had been using to communicate with his wife. The authorities told the family they had Scott's telephone number changed. Family members requested the new phone number, and this request was denied. After all communication with family members was cut off, we know Scott would refuse to communicate with authorities due to his distrust of them.

Later in the chain of events, the family requested that two family ministers be allowed to talk to Scott and was refused.

We are strongly urging Scott to peacefully surrender to authorities. Your family is willing to support you in any possible way. Scott, we love you and are praying for you and your safety.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(emphasis added)

Isn't it curious how the details mentioned above differ markedly from the "official" statements? Those who are defending the actions of the authorities, portray how avoidance of injuries is paramount when dealing with this type of situation. Went so far as to chastise me for posting a Waco analogy.

One of the big themes learned from Waco (in post-op analyses) was NOT to isolate the suspect; keep lines of communication open; esp. with a suspect whose distrust in govt. is well known and documented going in? Yet, it seems the actions described above go completely opposite...many actions to isolate the suspect - way beyond "accidental" knocking down of a radio tower (yeah, right). At least they didn't play "These Boots are Made for Walkin" at 140 db in the middle of the night (so we've made progress, eh?)

If the authorities were "bending over backwards" to avoid injuries, how do you explain all these actions to intentionally ISOLATE the subject?

Its apparent in this thread that one side is predisposed to believe the authroities, and make rational arguments for defendants to "trust the system". The rhetorical alternative posed is nothing short of anarchy.

Perhaps there's a third path, where official response takes into account the DISTRUST people have for the officials going in (for whatever reason...larger issues in society or whatever), not assuming that the other side shares your faith in the system. Seems like some missed opportunities in this case, eh?

Orthonym

July 11, 2003, 07:17 PM

The common law right to resist a false arrest, as far as I know, depends on one's being pretty sure that the arresting officer knows that HE is in the wrong. If the officer is handed a warrant and told to go bring someone in, he is required to obey the warrant if said warrant appears lawful on its face.

That said, I am reminded of a case here in FL a few years back. A rather high-ranking officer in the Miami-Dade (Metro) police department got traffically stopped on, I believe, I-95 in Broward or Volusia County. The video tape from the police car was played on national TV because there were (ugh!) racial issues involved. I think it was found that he really was, as he said at the time, falsely arrested. He resisted and it did him no good because Florida is one of those states which has adopted the "Uniform Law of Arrest", I think it's called. Texas has it right, I think. If a false arrest is a felony, why can't one use deadly force to resist such a felony?

CAVEAT :If the troopers serving the warrant were acting in good faith, my non-lawyer opinion is that they could not possibly be doing a false arrest!

benewton

July 11, 2003, 07:19 PM

Concur with Hammer4nc.

There'd better be a middle ground, and I think the LEO had better find it, lest we all go down the tubes 'till we find the ground ourselves.

I'm not so sure that the LEO's, once called Peace Officers have much of a role unless they understand the problem.

And I don't think that they do.

But, sometimes, I hope...

Orthonym

July 11, 2003, 07:51 PM

I just now read the Woodring family's statement again, somewhat more carefully. Knocked down the antenna tower? This sounds sort of Feddish to me. I recall reading in a short-wave listeners' magazine that the Feds at the Waco massacre jammed the ham radio transmissions of David Whatshisname, in contravention of a treaty signed by a president and ratified by the Senate.:fire:

Sir Galahad

July 11, 2003, 08:15 PM

A little over a couple years back, Flagstaff had an officer shot and killed in the line of duty. See, the dirty lowdown jackboot was infringing on a young tweekers Gawd-given Constitush 'nal right to blast music in a neighborhood at one in the morning. Some dadblamed people that wanted to sleep called the police. The jackboot told the young freedom fighter to please turn down his radio. As the gestapo officer turned away to go back to is car, the brave young upstanding citizen struck a blow for freedom and shot the cop in the back and killed him. After two years of playing the not guilty by reason of insanity card and losing, he now says he was in Page the whole time. But we all know the answer don't we? It's---THE COP'S FAULT!!! The cop should be exhumed and tried posthumously for infringing on that poor freedom fighter's rights! Then they can lock the remains up in the Poeples' Jail for enemies of the right to be an utter and complete idiot. All cops are jackboots, don't ya know? And all blacks________and all Hispanics_______and all Jews________. I guess it's ok to stereotype cops, though, because they're safe to hate. Just ask the remaining alive former members of the Symbionese Liberation Army, Weather Underground, and Students for a Democratic Society what a proud American tradition there is in hating cops and painting "Off the pigs!" on walls when no one is looking.

"Helter skelter, doodoodoodeedeedeedoo, helter skelter, doodoodoodeedoo..." It's like the late '60s in some of these threads.

Edward429451

July 11, 2003, 08:16 PM

Oh I feel sorry for the poor cop, I think. But all this under color of law and in good faith and just doing his job, is crap. Plain & simple. They were attacking his house with what amounted to grenades, and tear gas, and weapons and little old dirtbag scott cant defend himself? This is gestapo tactics. The community was not in danger, they had him contained. Cut his phone lines, tear down his radio tower, stick a few labels on him and oh what a dirtbag and good job cops.:barf:

Burn you out if you don't come out? Anybody see a pattern here?

This smells like Hitler is alive and well.

I think TBO likes starting fires and watching them burn.

Sir Galahad

July 11, 2003, 08:21 PM

And many of the people using terms like "jackboot" "gestapo" and "...Hitler is alive and well..." use the same terms that radical leftists use. Hmmmm........

Jeff White

July 11, 2003, 08:40 PM

hammer4nc,

I'm sure the truth lies somewhere in between all of these reports. What makes the family's statement any more credible then the statements from the authorities? Don't they have a horse in this race too?

We know that a family member contacted authorities with specific information on the best way she felt they could have served the original warrant to Scott, where he would be located during daylight hours on July 4th when he would be with family members for support. But, for reasons unknown to us they chose not to use this information.

Why didn't his supportive family accompany him and his attorney to the police station so he could turn himslef in and bond out if they were so concerned?

To clarify previous statements about Scott's wife's removal from the home, she wants it known that she left willingly.

We KNOW that Scott did not prevent her from leaving.

Who is ? There is not one person named or quoted. His sister publically commented in a couple of the other articles. Why has no one attached their name to this one? What about Mrs. Woodring? Not that it's required and maybe she prefers not to make any public comments, but we haven't heard anything from her.

The authorities say communication with Scott ceased at approximately 2:30 p.m. Monday, July 7th. Up to that point, family members had direct contact with Scott via cell phones and amateur radio, and he was talking calmly and rationally with us. The authorities were surprised to discover we had been communicating with Scott. Shortly thereafter Scott's telephone number was disabled. The authorities apologized to the family for "ACCIDENTALLY" knocking down Scott's amateur radio tower he had been using to communicate with his wife. The authorities told the family they had Scott's telephone number changed. Family members requested the new phone number, and this request was denied. After all communication with family members was cut off, we know Scott would refuse to communicate with authorities due to his distrust of them.

Later in the chain of events, the family requested that two family ministers be allowed to talk to Scott and was refused.

It's no surprise they cut off the phones. You don't want him talking to anyone else unless the negotiator is in control. No you don't want to isolate the suspect, but you want to be in on the conversations that he's having. How is it for the negotiator to be telling him one thing and the unamed family members to be telling him, "Don't listen to him Scott, they have no intention of letting you out alive." Now I'm not insinuating that that's what was said. I'm just illustrating why the negotiator has to be in on all the conversations the suspect is having. How was he supposed to build a rapport with the negotiator if he was getting all kinds of input from other people. Sorry, but the story that they couild have talked him out doesn't cut it. They obviously talked to him for hours by their own admission without the knowledge of the negotiator. What did they gain? In past incidents letting familiy members try to negotiate has turned out badly.

Were there missed opportunities? Maybe....But we have no idea what they told Woodring in those hours they were in contact with him. Sorry, I can't buy this statement sight unseen. No one has attached their name to it. Why? It would have a lot more credibility to me had someone put his or her name on it.

In no way shape or form is this the fault of the police. The fact remains that even though they didn't attempt to arrest him per the alleged instructions of the family. they did go to the house, knock on the door and politely ask him to come in. Where was his supportive family then?

Scott Woodring escalated the situation at every point that it was escalated. Scott Woodring refused to peacefully submit to arrest when he was politely asked to. Scoot Woodring armed himself and barricaded himself in his house. Scott Woording shot at the police while they were trying to negotiate with him. Scott Woodring shot Trooper Marshall when the SWAT Team entered the house. Scott Woodring either set the fire or used the fire to escape. And [B]ALL of this is ok and should be excused because he distrusted the government?

hammer4nc, benenewton, hey dudes, guess what, you've just been appointed incident commander and negotiator. Please post your operations plan and tell me how you are going to resolve this with no loss of life.

It's time to walk the walk, are you up to it?

Jeff

Gmac

July 11, 2003, 08:42 PM

Fubar,again.

hammer4nc

July 11, 2003, 09:07 PM

More details emerge as to the official tactics...

http://www.woodtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=1352157&nav=0RceGmsx
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

excerpt:

State police had said all along they wanted to end the standoff peacefully but were unaware of what Woodring had inside his home as far as weapons or explosives. Police had been engaging in so-called "scare tactics" such as using armored personnel carriers to circle the house, as well as detonation devices to keep their suspect on edge. Helicopters hovered day and night for surveillance and intimidation. Police never ruled out the use of force.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I tentatively withdraw an earlier speculation excluding the use of amplified Nancy Sinatra music (or soundtrack of lambs being killed), based on the above report.

I don't know what I'd do different, any comment anyone of us makes can be diismissed as Monday morning QB'ing, anyway, so we should not comment? Jeff, you apparently have LE tactical training...does the above activity fall within the bounds of barricaded suspect SOP's, as practiced in 2003?

Edward429451

July 11, 2003, 10:50 PM

Regardless, the citizens have a right to not be opressed and harassed in this manner. The police have a responsibility to not cross the line into what can reasonably be construed as tyranny, opression, and harrassment, wether they're under orders or not. Remenber the nuremburg trials? Remember the jews?

No wonder its an us vs them scenario. Thats they way they (the administration) wants it. Think outside the box boys, and embrace the citizenry as friends, family, and neighbors. Just say no to being a pawn. Pipe dream, huh?:(

I'm out of it, I don't want to argue.:)

Sigh.

Jeff White

July 11, 2003, 11:05 PM

hammer4nc,
You are right about Monday morning quarterbacking...But that said, I don't think that would be the appropriate way to handle that type of suspect.

None of us have access to whatever pyschological profile the negotiation team prepared on the suspect. But I don't think that you could intimidate someone with his views with a massive show of force like that. In my laymans (from a pyschological profiling standpoint) I would think that conduct like that would just convince him that all of his views about the government were right and that he might as well fight to the death.

If that's true, I give you your Waco reference back and withdraw my statements about no similarities. I also wonder about the decision to enter the house if they were so unsure of what he had in there. It also seems to me like a large amount of resources to arrest a man for a simple solicitation charge.

I have a feeling there is much more to this story then we know. Perhaps in the interest of closing the rift and ending some of the us vs. them that's going on here, we should continue to follow this story and decide just what was right and wrong with what was done on both sides.

Fair enough?

Jeff

Orthonym

July 11, 2003, 11:20 PM

Where is Mr. Woodring now? Can we haul him into court, along with the bimbettes who started the whole thing, without any more people getting hurt or killed?

brownie0486

July 11, 2003, 11:44 PM

Edward429451:

What amounted to grenades? Don't think so, where do you get that from? What did they use that amounted to grenades, that sounds like combat grenades when you say it, which they were NOT.

The police use flashbangs which are designed to stun the subject for a second with light, sound and percussion while they enter the room for THEIR safety. See, they don't want to get shot coming through the door. They don;t use anything that anmonts to grenades [ lie we all visualize when you speak that term ].

Wasn't the stand off something like 40 hours? Almost two days? Thats why the distractive music, due to the time involved. I'm sure they didn;t roll up and start playing your Nancy Sinatra as you suggest. Any ideas why they use loud music after many hours of standoff that go over a day? It's to keep him awake, don't want the poor boy falling asleep and getting any rest. Think he should be allowed to have some rest so he is bright eyed and bushy tailed when they enter at a later time if it is deemed necessary to end the standoff?

If you don't know why certain tactics are deployed or when, ask, but this anti-gov/anti cop attitude from some here [ including yourelf ] without any basis of knowledge on their reasoning or SOP seems just another us vs them attitude.

As to the family's comments, whether valid or not in the final analysis, are certainly suspect and already some discrepancies have been pointed out which others here tend to want to ignore to further their cause the cops did something wrong. I'm sure you can gather that the families of defendants are quoted all the time in papers and it usually goes soemthing like this:

The aunt--He was always such a good boy. Never got into trouble and was alays there for his mother who he loved dearly.

The mother---they killed my boy, why did the kill my boy? He never did anything to anyone and didn't deserve to die. He was only 22 and still a baby.

The father--can't be located

The neighbors---I always saw him going to the grocery store for his mother. He seemed like a very nice man. Never had any trouble with him. I think it is sad he had to die.

Now here's the interesting part--after all those family members have made their comments, we find that little 22 yr old Johnny f$^k stick has a criminal record several pages long starting when he was 10. B+E's, assaults, burglaries, thefts, robberies, ad infinum. That may not be the case here but it is the case all over the US on any given day if you read the papers from any major city.

Consequently, until the final analysis is in on this guy [ which it is not ]I don't hold much credence in the families statements.

As to the antenea takedown, if true, it was a good move. Would you have the police let him comm with outsiders who can or are observing their actions and possibly relaying that to the barricaded suspect so he has the intel to be where they are going to enter waiting to kill one or all of them?

Perhaps you would, or perhaps you have no training in the tactics of swat ops and have no basis to make an informed decision as to why they might take comm away, so it somehow becomes easier for you to blame the cops due to your lack of understanding in these types of situations. You attitude from your postings seems to suggest you are not objective when you don't understand something as you berate the cops actions and defend the barricader automatically without contemplating the issues, remaining objective and attempting to determine from others with that experience here through questions you may have. Course when you are not objective to begin with and are prone to the cause of the ones up against LE for any reason as in this situation it becomes easy to understand you would not be asking questions but making wild accusations against the LE community for many reasons.

No it isn't the gestapo, the gestapo did not have a rule book, nor did they need a reason to drag you from the home you were in and shoot you for NO reason at all other than your race, coler, or religious belief. See anything that resembles any of the above in this thread? Of course not, the police had a lawful warrant issued by a court, they were acting diligently for 40 some odd hours and attempted to resolve peacefully. They ASKED him to surrender, they didn't rush the house immediately and burn him out as you suggest by stating "Burn you out if you don't come out? Anybody see a pattern here? " Thats not what the cops do, what pattern?

If you are referring to waco and this event, that translates to what, 2 in the last decade [ perhaps a few more we aren't aware of ] out of hundreds of events across the US daily. That percentage seems like it is a little to samll to be claiming any patern being developed don't you think?

Inflammatory statements based on your emotions here do nothing to further the cause of keeping the us vs them from creeping closer and only incites others so inclined to not trust police actions and their intents when performing their jobs.

As to the comment on color of the law. There is none, it's the letter of the law.

benewton: "On essence, the is no EFFECTIVE defense, in the sense that if you are
exonerated, there isn't any cost to your finances or reputation."

I think you are forgetting that perhaps he was guilty of the offenses alleged. I mentioned it before here but then people tend to ignore questions they can't answer here and continue the ranting against LE's actions without full knowledge or merit. What of he was guilty of the chrages? Think maybe as a milita man he knew he didn;t want to do time and would rather stand them off? Perhaps it was "suicide by cop", though I doubt that now as he is among the missing. Would a true militai man have run? Or would he have stood for his rights as an innocent and demanded some death of honor for some cause he thought apporpriate at the time which went against the established laws of the government?

Does anyone believe that I or other LE's here have the wherewithall and funds to right an injustice on us anymore than the rst of the folks here that are not LE?
The attempt to use money as a motivator to defy the laws and lawful orders of a society is a poor excuse unless you can show somehow the police are immune to this as well. We are, for the most part, in the same boat where money and reputations are concerned if falsely accused, and we are daily as well, where is this holier than though attitude coming from like LE's are immune from this happening to them? That comment doesn;t hold as a valid reason to create a standoff for almost two days and kill an officer [ presumed for now ].

Brownie

Intune

July 11, 2003, 11:51 PM

Guess it depends who you are and how "annoying" you are to the powers that be whether they burn you out and/or shoot you. I'm with Jeff in that we need to find out more about this to decide. But it sure has the potential to reek.

05-13) 11:20 PDT NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) --
It was "human nature" that police showed restraint dealing with an armed and distraught fellow officer, even though he held them at bay for four hours while firing several shots, a police spokesman says.
Sgt. Mark Nelson, upset over a love triangle with other officers, shot at patrol cars and into the ground before surrendering Friday.
Two nearby elementary schools were locked down during the confrontation and neighborhood residents were telephoned and told to stay in their homes.
Nelson, 35, was the only one injured, suffering a minor flesh wound from a ricocheting bullet.
"I've been hearing of calls from people who said, 'He should have been killed,"' spokesman Don Aaron said Saturday.
But Aaron said Nelson had been a policeman for 13 years and was well known by many of the officers on the scene.
"Did they show restraint? I'd have to say yes," Aaron said. "If a person put themselves in the shoes of the responding officers where someone they knew very well had had a breakdown, then they too would have shown some restraint. It's human nature."
Nelson was upset about a romantic relationship between two other police officers, Melissa Vangyija and Coleman Womack. Aaron said there's no policy against officers dating.
Nelson's lawyer, Worrick Robinson, said Vangyija and Nelson had dated several months ago after Nelson and his wife separated. Aaron said Nelson saw Vangyija and Womack at a police rally last week and began calling her repeatedly at her home.
Vangyija told fellow officers about the calls and said she feared Nelson might be suicidal.
A team of officers including Nelson's supervisor went to his house and arrested him early Friday, Aaron said, but Nelson was released after evaluation by a crisis team, which scheduled another counseling session with him.
Nelson's police weapon was confiscated, Aaron said, but he got a personal gun and went to confront Womack at his home later Friday.
Womack and Vangyija escaped out the back of the house. Aaron said Nelson saw Womack run across the street and fired at him. Womack shot back, but both men missed.
The first two officers who arrived on the scene said Nelson opened fire in their direction, "but they didn't think he was actually firing at them," Aaron said.
Nelson was charged with three counts of felony aggravated assault, and more charges may follow. He was released on $15,000 bail and checked himself into the psychiatric ward at Vanderbilt University Medical Center on Saturday, Robinson said.

:what: :uhoh:

Orthonym

July 12, 2003, 12:05 AM

some animals really ARE more equal than others! (apologies to Mr. Blair/Orwell)

Intune

July 12, 2003, 12:31 AM

I ask again (emblematically) why did they choose that particular time to go in? I wish the police would issue a statement. That decision was the crux for a loss of life. The public shouldn’t have to wait ‘till they get all their ducks in a row for an after-action report. If it was that important to go in right then give us the reason.

State Police Inspector Barry Getzen said he assumed Woodring might still be in the basement, though he would not say whether he was dead. Getzen said police fired percussion rounds in the house to temporarily disable anyone inside because they did not believe Woodring would come out. They believed he may have had supplies to last a long time in a standoff.

Getzen said percussion rounds are capable of starting a fire, which he called unintended consequences.

Are these stronger/more flammable than hand-tossed flashbangs? How many did they fire? How many does it take to ignite the average household? With carpeting? Drapes? Studies done?

OR… Shoot them in anyway BECAUSE...
A. They immobilize him and capture the pondscumsucking dirtbag.
B. They don’t immobilize him but get the upper hand and they kill pssd when he tries to defend himself.
C. They don’t immobilize him and he shoots a police officer.
D. The dwelling is set ablaze and he is forced to come out and surrender.
E. The dwelling is set ablaze and he comes out shooting & goes down in a hail of gunfire.

TWO out of the five scenarios are acceptable to me. Their ratio of acceptability must have been MUCH higher or they wouldn’t have done it. A,B, D & E are a job well done, let’s be careful in there men?

F. An officer gets killed and the suspect escapes. THAT was the one they didn’t factor into the equation. I believe they had a bone to pick with this guy. I think that bone just got a whole lot bigger.

Intune

July 12, 2003, 01:10 AM

brownie0486 said:
“If you are referring to waco and this event, that translates to what, 2 in the last decade [ perhaps a few more we aren't aware of ] out of hundreds of events across the US daily. That percentage seems like it is a little to samll to be claiming any patern being developed don't you think?”

Well, sir, I think your take on it might be somewhat different if you were one of the 74 men, women & children murdered or the officer gunned down in this “event.” I especially like your line- “… perhaps a few more we aren't aware of…” That is a true gem. 2, 4, 40, aw, what the hay.

I’ve read a lot of your posts and they usually reinforce (for me) why the us vs. them attitude exists. There always seems to be an undercurrent of superiority. This could be my wanton imagination & due possibly to my sensitive status as a civilian. If I may be so bold as to enquire, why was your tenure as an officer of the peace so short? You seem to have a true affinity for everything about the job and its members. I too have a great respect for LEO’s, particularly those who adhere to the law.

brownie0486

July 12, 2003, 02:07 AM

Intune:
I didn't diminish any of those people at Waco who lost their lives including the LE's as you suggest, btw, why did you suggest I did?. And there may be more as stated and it doesn't diminish them at all either.

Merely pointed to the fact that one other posted like it was the norm, and it's not. Facts disprove that comment as he stated.

Superiority? I'm a regular citizen as many here are and have no powers over anyone. I do have some very specific knowledge about law enforcement however from years on the streets.

That gives me both sides of the coin to consider and experience at both ends, from both points of view.

Been stopped while operating a MV, had property taken away illegally [ which I got back later ], been hastled by cops continuously when on assignments, had them at the house over things, on a fed list, just like quite a few here. Still no criminal record, gun permits in order, taking assignments, etc etc.

Does any of this sound familiar? It should, others relate and berate about their own similiar problems in these areas quite frequently here. I probably run into more problems and situations with LE's than most here due to the nature of the assignments. Ya, I was on 9 years for two different depts, and now train them as well as.

I just don't post these types of experiences like others because I know the job they have to perform. I also know that there are bad apples among them, and some incompetants as well. I don't believe I or any other LE here ever said there weren't. I saw what people post up close and personal while under their umbrella.

You asked so I'll answer your question, though I will not expound further. I took a chief down from a neighboring town. That changed the course of history.

I call em the way I see em. You don't have to agree with it not do I expect you or others to do so.

Brownie

Travis McGee

July 12, 2003, 02:16 AM

Folks who reported seeing the video say the "flash-bang" grenades lifted the roof off the house.

So either the LEOs used "outside only" concussion grenades inside, intentionally to destroy the house, or the perp left the gas on.

brownie0486

July 12, 2003, 02:21 AM

Travis,

If indeed the roof lifted off the house, there was possibly an explosion as mentioned.

No grenade or flashbang would be capable of such destruction. It would not be the first time a perp attempted, during a barricade, to take all the LE with him that he could by setting the house up once the standoff ocurred.

Brownie

TheeBadOne

July 12, 2003, 02:48 AM

The strawman lives and breaths within

Intune

July 12, 2003, 03:08 AM

It sure does diminish those lives to state it the way you did. Maybe I’m reading it wrong. To me it reads like, “hey, we torched a few a couple of times in ten years, maybe more than a few but it’s not like we torch ‘em ALL the time…” Like I said, maybe it’s me. I could be imagining an attitude. I don’t want to go back & forth with ya ‘cause it’ll get this thread closed.

We had a funeral today for two Wilson County officers who lost their lives a couple of days ago because two young women decided to steal a car in Knoxville and start a multiple jurisdiction police pursuit halfway across the state where it ended in Mt. Julliet. This princess with a long rap sheet wasn’t gonna get tagged by that nasty ol spike strip across the road. No way. They had busted her before using that sneaky thing in ANOTHER stolen car. So she sped up to around 100 mph and plowed over the two officers standing on the side of the road, losing control of the vehicle in the process. We have the death penalty in TN. It won’t bring those officers back but she’ll never get another try at anyone else.

Because I feel really bad for these officers and their families and really disgusted towards those girls doesn’t make me pro-LEO.

That I have the sneaking suspicion that these agencies in MI or one in particular local had something or things against this guy and might not have been as patient as they should have been does not make me anti-LEO.

Case by case… Just like if I had to punch or shoot somebody. Better be within the law. Nothin' more, nothin' less.

Edward429451

July 12, 2003, 11:15 AM

What amounted to grenades? Don't think so, where do you get that from? What did they use that amounted to grenades, that sounds like combat grenades when you say it, which they were NOT.

If you watch the waco tape you see the senate hearing (or whatever) they had and first you see charles schumer talking like you do about flashbangs, like they're a firecracker. Then you see another guy (Cavanaugh?) setting the record straight saying "yes, certainly flashbangs can injure or kill..."

I read an account of some military guys training somewhere and they tossed in a flashbang into a room of an (abandoned) training house, and some poor locals were squatting there, and it F@#$%d them all up. stopped the excercise, hospital time, etc..

I was being fair and objective in saying what 'amounted' to grenades.If they're so safe, maybe you'll let me lob one at you, hmmm? This is war type tactics and is prohibited by the people on our soil. If the standing army uses them anyway, well I guess anything goes on either side.

If you don't know why certain tactics are deployed or when, ask, but this anti-gov/anti cop attitude from some here [ including yourelf ] without any basis of knowledge on their reasoning or SOP seems just another us vs them attitude.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure why they use them. Easier and cheaper than waiting them out, spreads 'fear of the gest, err, authority' making people easier to control thry fear. SOP huh? thanks for the tip.

As to the family's comments, whether valid or not in the final analysis, are certainly suspect and already some discrepancies have been pointed out which others here tend to want to ignore to further their cause the cops did something wrong.

Are you suggesting that the voice of the people are immediately suspect, but the cops are immediately not? What a ridiculous and yet predictable stance for the furtherance of the administrations agenda..

As to the antenea takedown, if true, it was a good move. Would you have the police let him comm with outsiders who can or are observing their actions and possibly relaying that to the barricaded suspect so he has the intel to be where they are going to enter waiting to kill one or all of them?

Look man, this guy is not a third world dictator with oil & WMD's. It was a citizen with an alledged solicitation charge. Armoured vehicles circling, choppers overhead, flashbangs, zipguns, intimidation...(tanks driving through the front wall of house saying "THIS IS NOT AN ASSAULT" (WACO)), grenades throu the windows (this is not an assault, its for our officers safety!!!) Whiskey Tango Foxtrot??? Thats WAR bubba. Did they even adhere to geneva convention rules for the poor guy? Doubt it. What kind of mindless serfs would you have us be if we can't even make a judgement call based on the observable behavior of the cops or assault team as it were??

No it isn't the gestapo, the gestapo did not have a rule book, nor did they need a reason to drag you from the home you were in and shoot you for NO reason at all other than your race, coler, or religious belief. See anything that resembles any of the above in this thread? Of course not, the police had a lawful warrant issued by a court, they were acting diligently for 40 some odd hours and attempted to resolve peacefully. They ASKED him to surrender, they didn't rush the house immediately and burn him out as you suggest by stating "Burn you out if you don't come out? Anybody see a pattern here? " Thats not what the cops do, what pattern?

If you didn't see anything like that in the thread, then your comprehension must be a little low, or you're reading with a biased eye. Attempt to resolve peacefully a solicitation charge? Would the peacefully part be the grenades or the armoured vehicles or the choppers? Oh wait, I see no mention of the choppers delivering indirect fire through the roof as they did in waco, so that must be the peacefully part. Hitler asked the jews to surrender peacefully also, right before they brought a wheeled gun around the corner to blow the house to smithereens. Shall we expect this soon also? ("Well cheif, we thought they mightv'e rigged the doors and windows, so we wanted to be safe and still get home in time to watch the game.."). So you see no pattern huh? You crack me up.

If you are referring to waco and this event, that translates to what, 2 in the last decade [ perhaps a few more we aren't aware of ] out of hundreds of events across the US daily. That percentage seems like it is a little to samll to be claiming any patern being developed don't you think?

No, I do not. A few here, a few there, its ok, go back and watch TV? Does it have to be in the millions like in Germany before we're allowed credence to our suspicions?

Inflammatory statements based on your emotions here do nothing to further the cause of keeping the us vs them from creeping closer and only incites others so inclined to not trust police actions and their intents when performing their jobs.

Good. QUESTION AUTHORITY, PEOPLE. Things may not be as they seem or want you to believe.

As to the comment on color of the law. There is none, it's the letter of the law.

Standard textbook jbt response. I think Hitler said the same thing.

The sad thing is that its hard to differentiate between jbt's and good officers.They wear the same uniform. I notice no response from you on the officers responsibility to do whats right, regardless of orders. Interesting.