Militia Chaplain is Dead


PDA






Ryder
July 14, 2003, 07:59 PM
Looks like news that Scott Woodring episode is over hasn't made the headlines to you all? At least 24 hours ago it was released here. Here are the details as provided.

"Scott was found sitting in a vehicle 4 miles from his home. He was ordered not to exit the vehicle. He got out with a rifle. He was shot to death"

That was the whole story. The announcer appeared to be suffering duress. No further details were released.

If you enjoyed reading about "Militia Chaplain is Dead" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
bjengs
July 14, 2003, 08:02 PM
Where did you hear this? Who was the announcer etc.?

hammer4nc
July 14, 2003, 08:08 PM
Shot yesterday morning. This grand rapids tv station has several news stories and video of MSP news conference on the incident, for those interested. Link: http://www.woodtv.com

Ryder
July 14, 2003, 08:17 PM
Local television news bjengs. According to what hammer4nc says it wasn't even released here for close to 18 hours.

Ryder
July 14, 2003, 08:32 PM
Thanks for the link hammer4nc.

Can somebody expain this comment to me? "Police all but ruled out the possibility that Marshall could have been shot by another officer. The bullets that struck him were fired by a weapon of smaller caliber than those issued to state police"

Doesn't "all but ruled out" mean it has not been ruled out? And weren't they using 5.56 caliber rifles? I don't get it.

Intune
July 14, 2003, 10:04 PM
Michigan Militia Standoff Update
An all-points-bulletin was issued by the Michigan State Police on July 9, 2003, for Scott Alan Woodring, the Michigan militia member who allegedly shot and killed a Michigan State Trooper during an armed standoff in Fremont in western Michigan.
Authorities decided to force an end to the standoff on the afternoon of July 8, using armored vehicles on loan from the Michigan National Guard to approach Woodring's house so that percussion grenades could be launched into the building. Two grenades were detonated, shortly after which the building caught fire and was rocked by explosions.
Woodring was originally thought to have been in the building when it burned down. However, a search of the building's remains failed to turn up any evidence of Woodring. Michigan State Police now believe he may have left his home as early as Monday afternoon. A backpack filled with food and ammunition was found on July 8, three quarters of a mile from Woodring's home. Woodring's wife has reportedly identified it as belonging to her husband.
A warrant for Woodring's arrest has been issued on murder and firearms charges.


W Z Z M 1 3 N E W S H E A D L I N E S
Woodring LatestBy Tatum WanPosted: 7/14/2003 Grand Rapids - The medical examiner today confirmed Scott Woodring died from multiple gun shot wounds yesterday. State Police responded to a residence near 60th Street and Maple Island Road in Newaygo County. Woodring approached a person in that residence that knew of Woodring. That person was concerned for his or her safety because that person said Woodring acted abnormally. That concern was eventually relayed to police. Police found Woodring in a car behind a house around five thirty in the morning. Five of the eight troopers who responded shot Woodring. Police say Woodring failed to follow instructions and Woodring turned on the officers with a semi-automatic assault rifle. Police don't believe woodring actually fired any shots though. At this point, police don't know how many shots Woodring received. Police now believe Woodring left his house in Dayton Township around dusk on Monday July 7th. An officer noticed someone in the northside of the house around that time. Police believe some people may have helped Woodring hide from police. If that is the case, those people could be charged with accessorty after the fact which is a five-year felony. If you know of anyone who might have helped Woodring get away, call 1-800-991-TIPS.


Police have stated that they felt that they would have to go in either Tuesday or in 30 days and that this was calculated risk that they had to take.

W Z Z M 1 3 N E W S H E A D L I N E S
Statement of Debbie DeVisser for the Woodring FamilyBy Posted: 7/9/2003 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 Fourth 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 pm, Monday, July Seventh. 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 accidently 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.



July 8, 2003

FREMONT -- State police are investigating what caused Tuesdays fire at the West Michigan home where a stand-off with a barricaded man resulted in the death of a Michigan State Police trooper.

They say they don't know exactly what caused the fire, but say it was intentionally set to get the man out of the house in Fremont.

The fire was smoldering this evening, and state police say they're not sure of the condition of the suspect.

Trooper Kevin Marshall was shot Monday afternoon. He died during surgery at a nearby hospital. The 33-year-old Marshall was an eight-year veteran of the state police.

The standoff began when police tried to serve the suspect with a warrant for criminal sexual conduct. The man barricaded himself in the home and shot at state police who tried to go in.


While sifting through the remains of Woodring's home Thursday, police found a large cache of weapons, including the spent bullets of an AK-47--bullets consistent with the wounds Trooper Marshall received.

Do they mean consistent like... Gunshot wounds? Okay, I know some consider .30's small caliber, but...
Lotsa questions here for me..
:uhoh: :what:

Jeff White
July 14, 2003, 11:22 PM
A lot of questions here.
What kind of weapon was Trooper Marshall shot with? The news reports say small caliber, but since when did they know anything about firearms? We have one report that says AK47. Should we trust the media to know that there are AKs available in .223 Remington and 5.45x39 in this country? Both would be a small caliber round.

What about outside help? It sure looks like he may have had some. Where'd he get the truck? Was it stolen? No word at all.

One thing that I can't understand. That's that this is basically a local story. I have seen nothing in the national media about this. Why? Fox News will preempt programming to cover a low speed chase of a misdemeanor suspect in LA, but they haven't covered this stand off at all.

This is a very strange case.

Jeff

Intune
July 15, 2003, 08:28 AM
I would not know any of this happened if I never came here. Not a peep from national news. Now the police are saying they did NOT start the fire on purpose. More in line with what one would hear from a police spokesman. This is some strange stuff. The officer is dead and buried and they can't say what caliber killed him? What weapons did the entry team have? They go in because it's either now or later?? That's crazy and it got 2 people killed. :barf:

MicroBalrog
July 15, 2003, 08:32 AM
They say they don't know exactly what caused the fire, but say it was intentionally set to get the man out of the house in Fremont.

Is this standard practice?:uhoh:

dustind
July 15, 2003, 08:42 AM
Darn, this whole story stinks in so many ways. There is so much information that makes it complex.

agricola
July 15, 2003, 09:37 AM
There is no point in allowing communication between family members / friends that isnt supervised by the PD in this situation; you dont know what is being arranged or discussed and given the facts it could well be that at least partial arrangements were made to assist in the escape.

woodring could have walked out of that house, into any precinct building or media centre and surrendered himself. he didnt, and now as the result of his own actions he is dead, just as Kevin Marshall is, also as a result of woodrings actions. Its just a pity that he didnt live to trial where they could have banged him away for life.

oh and the thread title "militia chaplain is dead" - i know people bitched about the LEO dead posts but that is taking the mickey.

Zundfolge
July 15, 2003, 09:42 AM
I would not know any of this happened if I never came here. Not a peep from national news.

Good.

Maybe the truth about what happened here won't get out to the masses, but frankly the elite media would just use this story as another anti 2A / anti gun owner / anti militia hit piece, giving the other side more fuel and not getting the truth out anyway.

Intune
July 15, 2003, 10:35 AM
What IS the truth here? I have read:
1 grenade, 2 grenades.
We meant for the house to catch fire, we didn't mean it.
We knocked the radio tower down unintentionally, we cut communications from house.
The family told officials where to get him in the safest possible manner, Mr. Woodring left us no choice we knew he was anti-gov but we thought doing doughnuts around his house in an Army APC would calm him down.
Spent bullets from an AK-47? Not 7.62 or 5.56 casings that may be fired from a multitude of platforms? An example of a dumb reporter?
Did they do forensics on spent bullets to ascertain they came from an AK-47 but can't tell us what the officer was hit with?
We have to go in NOW because we don't want to sit around and have to do it in 30 days anyway???


This is BAD juju to me, folks. Both families should be asking the question, WHY?
:banghead: :uhoh:

Intune
July 15, 2003, 11:01 AM
agricola said: "woodring could have walked out of that house, into any precinct building or media centre and surrendered himself. (TRUE) he didnt, and now as the result of his own actions he is dead, just as Kevin Marshall is, (TRUE) also as a result of woodrings actions. (True&False) (He initiated this entire incident with his conduct at store. Police exacerbated the situation by ignoring family members, bringing in an APC and the key action that caused officer Marshall's death should be placed at the feet of the scene commander. Storming that house was the direct acion that blew this situation up. Woodring wasn't shooting at police on the perimeter when Kevin was killed.)

Its just a pity that he didnt live to trial where they could have banged him away for life."
Do you really think that's what they wanted? I don't. I envision high-fives back at the station. This whole thing stinks and two people are dead.

JohnBT
July 15, 2003, 11:22 AM
I had heard this on the radio. They reported it as another cop killer goes down. We've had our share of cop killers around here as well.

My condolences to the family and friends of the trooper.

As far as the chaplain...a chaplain you say? He wasn't acting like any of the chaplains I've ever met.

A sad tale all the way around.

John

Wildalaska
July 15, 2003, 11:47 AM
More fodder for the militia nuts.

WildwilllookatwhattheysayonstormfrontlaterAlaska

MicroBalrog
July 15, 2003, 12:08 PM
Do you really think that's what they wanted? I don't. I envision high-fives back at the station. This whole thing stinks and two people are dead.

I agree perfectly.

agricola
July 15, 2003, 12:45 PM
intune,

from their actions the family may have contributed as much to his death as the Police. It doesnt read as if they made the PD aware that they had contact with him, and (from conjecture) it could be that the mast was deliberately taken down to prevent contact from the outside world. There is a strong suggestion that he had help from the outside also. We dont, and probably will never know, what the communications were between the family and woodring, but i'll stand amazed if they were of the "give yourself up variety".

with regards to having a family member informed as of the best way to serve the warrant, one imagines many LEO will share my belief that had they done that woodring would probably not have been home that morning.

the only thing that stinks about this is the respect accorded to woodring by some.

Intune
July 15, 2003, 01:26 PM
Sinner or Saint, militiaman or maintenance man, crook or cop, bum or barrister, janitor or judge, don't they all deserve respect at least in regards to the sanctity of life? I see no undue respect lauded upon Woodring. If anything, DISrespect was shown. We are citizens NOT serfs. There will be, MUST be a reason/reckoning for this type of action perpetrated upon this citizen by the powers that be. It may all make perfect sense when the final report is delivered. I hope it does. Two lives were lost. Not one important one and one peon.

MicroBalrog
July 15, 2003, 01:26 PM
Medical Examiner: Woodring shot as many as four times



Email to a Friend
Printer Friendly Version



By Brett Thomas

(Walker, July 14, 2003, 11:50 p.m.) New information on the autopsy of Scott Woodring shows he was shot as many as four times. The alleged killer of a Michigan State trooper was shot and killed by police Sunday morning.

According to the Kent County Medical Examiner, the autopsy reveals that Scott Woodring died within seconds after being shot.

Woodring was hit as many as four times, in Dr. Stephen Kohl's early estimate. Twice by a shotgun and once or twice with a rifle. The shot-gun blasts were fatal. One hitting Woodring in the head, the other in the throat. Dr. Cohle says Woodring does have a wound on his arm that is consistent with police reports that say he was turning and raising his rifle towards the officers.

Other information revealed in the autopsy shows that Woodring had apparently been eating. He wasn't emaciated, but there was no food in his stomach at the time of his death.

Monday police revealed more information about the week long search for Woodring. They believe he left the house around 8:30 p.m. on Monday, July 7th. They know that because an officer saw him, but no immediate action was taken.

"At that time we had the original team, that included Kevin Marshall, and were in the process of withdrawing them and inserting a fresh team. And during that confusion is when the call was made that someone was out on the north side," said Inspector Barry Getzen with the Michigan State Police.

Police say Woodring was finally located in Brunswick Sunday morning after he spoke to someone who knew him. That person quickly called police.

Police are now focusing their attention on anyone that may have helped Woodring in his attempt to escape police. If you have any information, you're asked to call 1-800-991-8477.

http://www.woodtv.com/Global/story.asp?s=%20%201360522

JohnBT
July 15, 2003, 03:07 PM
"Two lives were lost."

Yup, one criminal and one good guy.

A sad tale for all the family and friends left behind. It's a shame Mr. Woodring didn't do the right thing and just kill himself if he wanted to die. Then there would just be one dead man and the trooper could go home to his family.

John

bjengs
July 15, 2003, 05:09 PM
Well said, JBT.

The righteous anti-militia work of Janet Reno and Bill Clinton carries on.

MicroBalrog
July 15, 2003, 05:12 PM
A sad tale for all the family and friends left behind. It's a shame Mr. Woodring didn't do the right thing and just kill himself if he wanted to die. Then there would just be one dead man and the trooper could go home to his family.



Are you 100% sure that Woodring did kill that trooper?

Jeff White
July 15, 2003, 05:28 PM
Or does anyone believe that things have gotten to the point that they should start one?

If not, we need to remember that Scott Woodring is responsible for Trooper Marshall's death and his own.

Given the information that is here, I believe that there should be a full investigation and we should be entitled to know what happened. But that said, the police started by attempting to serve a lawful arrest warrant on a felony suspect. And they initially tried a non-confrontational apporach.

We can Monday Morning Quarterback this to death, but the fact remains that Woodring could have avoided all of this had he just peacefully submitted to arrest. I want to know what really happened as much as anyone. Let's not lose sight of what started the entire incident though.

So as we affix the blame here and talk about if they only had listened to the family or if they only hadn't knosked down the radio tower, or any other thing they did in this fiasco, just remember that Scott Woodring forced the stand off. By his own choice, he refused to be peacefully arrested.

If the state cannot compel someone to appear in court to answer charges, by force if necessary, then we might as well not have a state.

If Scott Woodring was so afraid he would be murdered by the police if he was arrested, he could have called an attorney, called the media and turned himself in under the klieg lights.

If Trooper Marshall was killed by a ND from a fellow team member it makes no difference. Oh, it'll make a difference in how they train and deploy, but Scott Woodring is still as responsible as if he had pulled the trigger himself.

Jeff

Intune
July 15, 2003, 05:55 PM
He fled while officers were being relieved, police inspector says
July 15, 2003
BY CHRIS CHRISTOFF
FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER
GRAND RAPIDS -- The fugitive who allegedly shot and killed a State Police trooper July 7 slipped past a police stakeout at his home near Fremont and into surrounding woods six hours after the shooting, a State Police spokesman said Monday.
Scott Woodring, 40, was shot and killed by State Police officers early Sunday as he sat in a car at a home 4 miles from where his house stood before it burned down during his standoff with police.
State Police Trooper Kevin Marshall of Rockford died from gunshot wounds July 7 as he and other police attempted to enter Woodring's rural home to arrest him. The day before, Woodring threatened Hesperia police serving an arrest warrant on charges of soliciting a minor for immoral purposes.
Police said the bullets that killed Marshall match the type of ammunition from assault-style firearms Woodring owned.
Woodring's family said Monday that police ignored suggestions to arrest Woodring at a family gathering July 4, where they say violence could have been avoided. Woodring's wife left the house early in the standoff. The couple had no children.
State Police Inspector Barry Getzen said Monday that Woodring apparently fled his house while backup officers relieved those at the scene who were attempting to negotiate his surrender. Getzen said a man matching Woodring's description was seen near his house shortly before he was believed to have fled, but that his escape went unnoticed.
Last Tuesday, police fired two percussion grenades into the house to flush out Woodring. The explosives may have set the fire that destroyed the house, police said. Police then learned Woodring had fled.
Getzen said the investigation has turned to finding anyone who might have helped Woodring elude a police dragnet for five days. Aiding and abetting a fugitive accused in a felony is a felony.
Woodring faced charges of murder, attempted murder and felony firearm in the death of a trooper.
Getzen said police received more than 300 tips before Woodring was found outside the home. Its owner notified police after Woodring approached him early Sunday morning.
Getzen said five of the eight officers who surrounded the car shot at Woodring after he stepped out of it brandishing a semiautomatic Colt .223 assault rifle.
An autopsy showed Woodring died of multiple gunshot wounds. Getzen said he didn't know how many shots the officers fired.
"They felt their lives were in danger," Getzen said.
There was no indication Woodring fired any of the 20 rounds in the rifle, Getzen said.
Getzen said police found a map of Hesperia, water, a flashlight with a red lens and burglary tools in the car. They also found writings with many biblical references.
At a news conference, Getzen offered condolences to Woodring's family.
Woodring's father, Gerald Woodring, insisted Monday that his son was not violent, and that State Police provoked him by storming his house.
The father said he believed the original charge against his son -- soliciting a minor -- may have resulted from Woodring offering money to teenage girls to buy clothes, an act he said was captured on a gas station surveillance tape.
He said his son, who has been linked with the anti-government, white supremacist Christian Identity movement, believed women should dress modestly.
Gerald Woodring also said his son was very frugal and collected large amounts of money in gold and silver, in the belief that the U.S. financial system was on the verge of collapse.
He said he was unsure of exactly how much money his son had: "I think I'm even going to be surprised when they're finished looking through" the debris of the burned house.



Police Describe Weapons Found In Scott Woodring's Home


July 10, 2003, 10:50 PM EDT

WALKER -- Michigan State Police Inspector Barry Getzen says what police found in the rubble of Scott Woodring's home is as disturbing as what they didn't find.

"There were two lever-action rifles that were found," Getzen said. "Three semi-automatic .22 rifles with banana clips fully loaded and one .12 gauge shotgun that was loaded." Police also found thousands of rounds of ammunition, a gas mask and military meals-ready-to-eat.

Getzen continued:

"The weapon carried by trooper Kevin Marshall at the time of entry on Monday has not been found to this time."


Where is the weapon that fired the AK-47 rounds mentioned earlier? Hmmm?

hammer4nc
July 15, 2003, 05:58 PM
If Trooper Marshall was killed by a ND from a fellow team member it makes no difference.

I'm not sure how well considered this statement is, but taken at face value, it reveals something of the leo mindset that is quite troubling. Namely, once a suspect sets the ball in motion (by resisting or whatever), the leo escapes any responsibility for subsequent actions. It makes no difference (except as a training aid). It makes no difference (as long as only perps are wasted). Thus many tactical actions are explained.

It makes a big difference.

MicroBalrog
July 15, 2003, 06:00 PM
The father said he believed the original charge against his son -- soliciting a minor -- may have resulted from Woodring offering money to teenage girls to buy clothes, an act he said was captured on a gas station surveillance tape.
He said his son, who has been linked with the anti-government, white supremacist Christian Identity movement, believed women should dress modestly.


So let me get this straight: The guy believed the girls were dressing immodestly, and he offered them money to buy modest clothes? And then they accuse him of trying to seduce them and bring in the SWAT teams?

Sergeant Bob
July 15, 2003, 07:11 PM
Given the information that is here, I believe that there should be a full investigation and we should be entitled to know what happened. But that said, the police started by attempting to serve a lawful arrest warrant on a felony suspect. And they initially tried a non-confrontational apporach.

We can Monday Morning Quarterback this to death, but the fact remains that Woodring could have avoided all of this had he just peacefully submitted to arrest. I want to know what really happened as much as anyone. Let's not lose sight of what started the entire incident though.


Jeff, not disagreeing with you at all in this case, but I do believe it is pertinent to future cases (in which some of us could be involved) but, that's exactly what will be said when they come to get our guns (those who choose to resist). Not trying to justify his actions, but it sounds as if he believed it had gotten to that point.

Jeff White
July 15, 2003, 07:18 PM
I'm not sure how well considered this statement is, but taken at face value, it reveals something of the leo mindset that is quite troubling. Namely, once a suspect sets the ball in motion (by resisting or whatever), the leo escapes any responsibility for subsequent actions. It makes no difference (except as a training aid). It makes no difference (as long as only perps are wasted). Thus many tactical actions are explained.

hammer4nc,
Please expalin to me how Woodring isn't responsible. We have no problem charging an armed robber with murder if one of the victims dies from a heart attack, a gunshot from an accomplice or even a stray round from the police. Woodring became responsible legally for everything that happened after he barricaded himself in the house. If he had survived and it was proven that Trooper Marshall was in fact killed by a negligent discharge from another officer, I would be willing to to bet that he would have been charged with Trooper Marshall's murder.

So can I assume that you feel we are in the midst of the revolution and it's perfectly acceptable for people to resist lawful arrest by force? If that's how you feel, how come you are complaining about the rules of engagement? If we were truly at war with whatever branch of the Mighigan Militia Woodring belonged to, we could have solved this problem with a 2000 lb LGB and a laser designator. Would surely have saved friendly casualties. Seems to be that if you're at war the rule of engagement might be slightly different.

Now you and I both know that we aren't at war with each other here. Scott Woodring was an accused felon.

I reiterate, this is not a case of a no-knock warrant served in the dead of night. There was a complaint filed.

an act he said was captured on a gas station surveillance tape.

The charges were investigated and sufficient cause was found to issue a warrant.

The day before, Woodring threatened Hesperia police serving an arrest warrant on charges of soliciting a minor for immoral purposes.

The police tried to peacefully serve the arrest warrant. Yes, they ignored what his sister says she told them about how to arrest him.

Woodring's family said Monday that police ignored suggestions to arrest Woodring at a family gathering July 4, where they say violence could have been avoided.

So Chief hammer4nc, Do you arrest Scott Woodring at a family get together, where if this go bad and Woodring resisted, there would have been all kinds of innocents in close proximty where they would be endangered? Or where they may have interfered. So citizen hammer4nc (take your chiefs hat off for a minute), what would you be posting if they had followed the family's advice and it had turned bad and innocent people would have been killed or injured? Even if the family really wanted this to end peacefully, you can never tell how they will react when the cuffs go on. Do you have any idea how many spouses or significant others have demanded the other party be arrested during a domestic dispute, who decide to fight the officers the minute the cuffs go on? It usually goes something like this; "I'll sign a complaint, I'll sign anything! I want that (fill in profane term of endearment that Art's gradmother woud disapprove of here) out of here now. If you don't take him out of here I'll kill him. Did you see this bruise? " So you hok the guy up and the fight is on. Now it's "Don't take him, what gave you the right to come in here anyway!" Usually followed by punches and kicks towards the arresting officers.

Now put your chiefs hat back on and tell me your solution.

Microbalrog,

So let me get this straight: The guy believed the girls were dressing immodestly, and he offered them money to buy modest clothes? And then they accuse him of trying to seduce them and bring in the SWAT teams?

Where has it been established that that's what happened? Because the father said he believed that happened? Well, I don't know what the rules of evidence are in Israel, but over here it usually takes a little more then a parent saying he thinks that's what went down to aquit. Are you a father? Even if you aren't, imagine this. Your teenage daughter comes home and says she and her friends were up at the convenience store and this guy came up and offered them money for sex. Wouldn't you want the authorities to investigate? Do you know if there was any audio on the videotape? I don't.

And they sent the SWAT team when Woodring barricaded himself in his house and threatened the Hesperia police who showed up at the door to arrest him. What would you have them do at that point?

hammer4nc, Microbalrog, Intune, if you were victims of a crime and the police didn't arrest the suspect, because he didn't want to be arrested, would you accept that as the answer?

Plenty wrong here, but Scott Woodring bears ALL RESPONSIBLITY. Unlike Waco, or Ruby Ridge, they tried the peaceful approach. They walke up to the door, knocked and asked him to come quietly. When he didn't and barricaded himself in the house, then SWAT was called. Not to start the action, but to end it, hopefully peacefully, but once again, Scott Woodring decided otherwise.

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what they would have done.

Jeff

MicroBalrog
July 15, 2003, 07:26 PM
I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what they would have done

What I would have done? I would have brought in an expert hostage negotiator and talked to this guy, and I would have pulled the time as long as possible. No "we knocked on the door, he didn't come out, bring in the artillery barrage" stuff. I would have pulled the time as long as possible. But I'm not a cop, so I don't know. That's just a purely emotional response.

Jeff White
July 15, 2003, 07:42 PM
MicroBalrog,
What I would have done? I would have brought in an expert hostage negotiator and talked to this guy, and I would have pulled the time as long as possible.

They talked for how many hours? What did they talk about? hmmm...I don't know either. Do you suppose that maybe the negotiator said "Doesn't matter if we rush him now or in 30 days or 90 days, the rsults are going to be the same, we'll have to rush him." I think I read something like that in one of these threads. Are you an expert hostage negotiator? I'm not. But when the negotiator says he can't reach the suspect, then what do you do? How long should they have talked? We don't know what was said between the negotiator and the suspect, we don't know what Woodring and his family talked about. I suggest we refrain from making assumptions about if they negotiated long enough until we get more information. We'd both be guessing.

Jeff

bbrins
July 15, 2003, 08:27 PM
I'm kinda wondering if we should even be talking about this. I feel sorry for both families having lost someone they loved, but this is just more fuel for the anti's. No matter who caused this situation to escalate into what it did, the anti-gunners are just going to see that this guy had "assault weapons" so we must ban them all. Just remember that this situation may not have reached the national news widespread, but we aren't the only people that read this board.


oops. Edited for spelling, and probably still missed some.

bjengs
July 15, 2003, 08:37 PM
bbrins,

I disagree, this is very pertinent. You don't have to be a fan of the modern militia to know that trumped up charges are becoming more common against "outsiders." The day may soon come when someone in power gets p.o.'d at you and puts out a warrant for your arrest. It might be something tedious like zoning violations, it might be something damaging like sexual allegations. Or, most relevant to this board, it might be to enforce the latest handgun ban.

I think it's very arrogant for someone to say "you ought to just submit peacefully for the arrest" when you know the charges are false.* Some men have been raised to stand up for what they feel is right, and they would refuse to go. You are guaranteed to lose money, reputation, and potentially your freedom by hoping the system will bail you out - especially when it's the system that is arresting you in the first place!




*obviously we don't know if the charges against Woodring are true or not, we'll wait to hear more.

bbrins
July 15, 2003, 10:08 PM
I disagree, this is very pertinent. You don't have to be a fan of the modern militia to know that trumped up charges are becoming more common against "outsiders." The day may soon come when someone in power gets p.o.'d at you and puts out a warrant for your arrest. It might be something tedious like zoning violations, it might be something damaging like sexual allegations. Or, most relevant to this board, it might be to enforce the latest handgun ban.
For some reason I failed to see it in that light. I was just sorta thinking that it might be a bit early to make a judgement.

Jeff White
July 16, 2003, 12:40 AM
I think it's very arrogant for someone to say "you ought to just submit peacefully for the arrest" when you know the charges are false.* Some men have been raised to stand up for what they feel is right, and they would refuse to go.

What a sad commentary on our times. Perhaps we should disband all of the police agencies and empty the jails and prisons. How would the system work if it required you to be convicted before being arrested?

Perhaps you have already declared war on society. There is nothing wrong with standing up for what is right. But you stand up in court, not in battle.

We are still trying to be a nation where law is supreme. Are we perfect? No, of course not. Are the jails and prisons full of innocents who are there because of "the man conspiring to keep the brothers down" as I was told one time? Again, no.

So someone tell me why Scott Woodring is such a hero. And would you still feel he was a hero if it had been your teenage daughter at the convenience store.

Why are you so convinced he's innocent? Because he held anti-government views? Good and just men are falsely accused all the time. But they usually hire a lawyer and clear their name in court. Why isn't that an option?

Jeff

Wildalaska
July 16, 2003, 01:15 AM
Good and just men are falsely accused all the time. But they usually hire a lawyer and clear their name in court. Why isn't that an option?

1. Because its far more fun to get on the net and play anti government freak from the safety of cyberspace...

or..

2. Because some people belive that their governemtn is controlled by intrisically evil forces (like ZOG) and therefore will be unfair to their poor selves...


WildmilitiamovementsarescaryAlaska

Ian
July 16, 2003, 01:27 AM
or possibly:

3. You don't have the money to fight charges in court.

or

4. You don't dispute your guilt.

Not to condone his actions, but Carl Drega, for example, spent years if not decades fighting in court. He (predictably) lost nearly every time, and was driven to the point of giving up and shooting a half-dozen cops, Park rangers, and judges.

The biggest problem with relying on the court system is that in many cases (especially the gun cases THR members are most likely to become involved in) you are likely guilty anyway. You DID the crime, and that's not the question. The problem is that the crime you committed was something you believe is not wrong and should not be illegal. In such a case, relying on the court will get you convicted in a jiffy (you're only chance being jury nullification).

Wildalaska - I'm sorry that people with guns scare you. :neener: ;) :p

Jeff White
July 16, 2003, 08:30 AM
The biggest problem with relying on the court system is that in many cases (especially the gun cases THR members are most likely to become involved in) you are likely guilty anyway. You DID the crime, and that's not the question. The problem is that the crime you committed was something you believe is not wrong and should not be illegal. In such a case, relying on the court will get you convicted in a jiffy (you're only chance being jury nullification).

Ian, are you suggesting it's ok to use force to resist enforcement of a law you don't agree with? What about members of NAMBLA? Is it ok for them to violently resist arrest on child molestation charges because they believe the laws are unjust?

Our system just doesn't work that way. If a law is unjust you work within the sytem to amend or repeal it. You don't shoot at those who come to arrest you for violating it. Perhaps things would have worked out better for the civil rights movement had they killed a few police officers when the came to arrest Rosa Parks for violation of the Jim Crow laws?

What you are suggesting ammounts to armed insurrection. Are we at that point? Are you ready to tear everything down and try to rebuild from whatever is left?

Jeff

Intune
July 16, 2003, 09:29 AM
Only one person knows if he was innocent of the original charge or not, the girl at the gas station. And if anyone thinks that after all that has transpired, including two deaths, that her story is not coached more than lines in As The World Turns, I’ve got a collectors edition very rare NAA .22 that you can take off my hands for a mere 5 grand!

I don’t know if he was an innocent, good family man or a scumbag pedophile. Comments from friends & family indicate the former. What I do know is that he was so scared, paranoid, distrustful of the govt & its ranks that he was willing to kill & die to avoid being touched by these people. Does this sound like a guy you want to terrify with a huge APC churning up his yard? Everyone raise their hand who think the police handled this great, good, fair??? Here is my take on it.

Didn’t take family members advice or even ASK him to come downtown even though most know him to be a “bit” paranoid.

Bring SWAT in, get on the loudspeakers and tell him how trapped he is. Hmmm.

Pop tear gas in ‘cause you “EITHER HAVE TO DO IT NOW OR IN 30 DAYS.” ????!!!??? Now he’s scared, all of his twisted fears are coming to fruition. They’re coming for him.

Send in entry team. ‘Cause you “EITHER HAVE TO DO IT NOW OR IN 30 DAYS.” Amid the swirling smoke, the masked, black-clad, armored ninjas come to end his life. Stark terror.

Brought in the ultimate show of govt power, a U.S. Army armored vehicle.
He was scared before, now he’s terrified and possibly on the verge of insanity. Let’s ratchet up the fear factor. Hey this is cool, he’s soiling his self !!! Try & defy us, scumbag. Sheesh.

My favorite right here- Having surrounded the house to prevent insane madman from escaping, EVERYONE walk to doughnut truck when shift is over & shoot the breeze. And these are competent people? Great command & control?

Let’s use the APC to lob some concussion grenades in! Yea!! Should we have an entry team poised? Naw, we just want to mess with him or start a fire to force him out.

This is good police work???

I want to see what was said and done exactly. I think the situation was FUBAR and I think the police handled it like rank amateurs. This does NOT mean that I support or endorse Scott Woodring. Should he have submitted to arrest. Yes. He didn't and I think it should have been handled better.

MicroBalrog
July 16, 2003, 09:34 AM
Ian, are you suggesting it's ok to use force to resist enforcement of a law you don't agree with? What about members of NAMBLA? Is it ok for them to violently resist arrest on child molestation charges because they believe the laws are unjust?



Why are you suggested that he resited enforcement "violently"? Do you have 100% proof that he shot that cop?

rrader
July 16, 2003, 09:41 AM
It looks like the same sociopathic cult mindset that resulted in the LEO murders of Randy Weaver's wife and son at Ruby Ridge was in operation here.

It "made no difference" if the targeted inanimate object/suspect in this case actually did anything wrong. LEO cult members were able to successfully manipulate the whole situation for a "big show" to be used at year's end to justify budget increases and glowing performance evaluations. Taking this inaminate object/ suspect into custody peacefully would have defeated that purpose, just as it would have at Waco. Recall that LEO-cult members could have taken Koresh into custody peacefully during his morning jogs.

Jeff White
July 16, 2003, 10:18 AM
Intune,
We agree then. Like you, I don't know the details. It certainly looks FUBAR from what's been released. But we are basing all of our judgements on news reports. We all know how accurate those are. For instance in an earlier post, you asked (honest question) "What happened to the AK47?" I'm wondering if there ever was an AK47. It was only mentioned in one news article and there were no more references to it.

I will agree that use of aircraft and armored vehicles seems over the top given the information we have. It's almost like they have not updated anything in their SOPs for more then 10 years. I am also wondering about why there was no effort to apprehend the man matching Woodring's description who was spotted slipping through the inner perimeter.

A lot of questions here, hopefully we will get some answers.

MicroBalrog,

Why are you suggested that he resited enforcement "violently"? Do you have 100% proof that he shot that cop?

Perhaps the fact that he fired shots at the officers on the perimeter, leads me to believe he resisted violently. And as I've said before, it doesn't matter if Trooper Marshall tripped and shot himself, Woodring is as guilty as if he'd pulled the trigger

Are you advocating that the next time a Hezbolla terrorist crosses into Israel, kills some people and retreats to his home, that the IDF should just wait, because he's not resisting violently?

The point that all of you seem to be missing is that the seriousness of the crime, relative to anyones own personal code is irrelevant and immaterial. We don't argue the merits or constitutionality of our laws in the streets and fields with weapons. We argue these issues in court. We argue these issues in the legislature. When we are to the point where we are arguing these issues violently, we have started the revolution. And unless you want to be a martyr to the cause, you had better have enough support and firepower to win. You had better be as committed to your cause as the founding fathers were. You had better be prepared to sacrifice your name, your property, your family and your life for what you believe in. It's sad but it's true, the victors write the history books. Do any of you think that our founding fathers would be the revered men they are today if they had lost? No not hardly. History would have recorded them as criminals and traitors to the Crown, no matter how right their cause was.

How does history remember those who led the Whiskey Rebellion? Who even knows the names of the leaders of it?

When you say that it's acceptable to use force to settle your disagreement with the government, you are advocating revolution. Which is fine. There has been a lot of good that came out of revolutions in the past. Let's just be honest and upfront here. By advocating violent resistance to the rule of law, you are advocating revolution. Makes you no different then the Black Panthers, the Symbionese Liberation Army, the Weathermen or the Students for a Democratic Society. You may be on the opposite end of the political spectrum, but you are cut from the same cloth. You are willing to impose the changes on our society that you think would make it better by the use of force. You are saying that it is no longer acceptable to work within the system to bring those changes about. You are saying that there is not nor will ever be any chance for justice in the courts or reform in the legislature and that you are willing to pit brother against brother and bring untold hardship on innocent bystanders to achieve your goals.

Say you win the revolution. Will it be ok to violently resist the laws of your new government. There will always be someone who feels the laws are unjust.

Jeff

Ian
July 16, 2003, 10:21 AM
Ian, are you suggesting it's ok to use force to resist enforcement of a law you don't agree with? At some point, yes it must be - and the classic example is the Holocaust.

Jeff White
July 16, 2003, 10:40 AM
Ian,
I agree...but the question is....Are we at that point yet? Are we rounding up gunowners, blacks, hispanics, jews, homosexuals, consevatives, liberals or any other group and packing them off to the concentration camps?

And in the case under discussion here...is this an example of when it's ok to resist arrest? If so what makes it different from a NAMBLA member resisting arrest?

rrader,
Unlike Waco and Ruby Ridge, the police walked up to the door and asked Woodring to surrender. Much different circumstances. Do you think he would have gone out jogging after that if they had just went away?

It "made no difference" if the targeted inanimate object/suspect in this case actually did anything wrong.

Woodring did in fact do something wrong, he resisted arrest. At that point it doesn't matter if he solicited the young girl or not. The alleged victim and her family is as entitled to their day in court as Woodring. We will neve rknow if Woodring was guilty of the original charge. Why won't we know that, because Woodring denied the victim her day in court. Now a Trooper is dead, Woodring is dead, a home is in rubble, children are without a father, two women are widows and there is more distrust between the people and their government. But who's fault is it. It's Scott Woodring's. All he would have had to have done was turn himself in or go with the local police when they came to arrest him. Was the response to his resistance inappropriate? Quite possibly so. But he had no right to resist.

At Waco and Ruby Ridge, they started out using an inappropriate level of force. They didn't in this case. They walked up, knocked on the door and asked him to submit to arrest. That is the difference. That is why this isn't like Waco or Ruby Ridge. There was no attempt to force him into a corner. He ran into the corner on his own.

Jeff

Ian
July 16, 2003, 11:32 AM
Jeff - No, I don't think we're at that point. But there is no set point at which we will be "over the line." Each person draws their line at a different point, and the people whose lines are being crossed now are like mine canaries. They should be an indicator that we're headed in the wrong direction. This doesn't excuse the actions of those individuals, but it should darn well be telling us something.

Intune
July 16, 2003, 11:36 AM
Jeff, man, I was sooo with your analysis until this: "That is the difference. That is why this isn't like Waco or Ruby Ridge. There was no attempt to force him into a corner. He ran into the corner on his own."

I would liken it more to Waco than Ruby Ridge in that a knock on the door request/insist you come with us goes rapidly downhill to the point where the situation degrades to gunshots by one side or the other indicating, to me, that one side has obviously mishandled or misread the other party. The assault, armor, fire does have a familiar look. I don't know that I would have returned fire as a Branch D. in Waco. Ruby R. was much more surreptitious and I would have returned fire in the initial contact. Having said that, the only time I would every fire upon law enforcement is in a case of mistaken identity or surprise. Once identified as legit LEOs all bets are off. Surrender immediately. One can't win on the battlefield with LEOs, too many resources including military hardware. M1's and A10's will mess one's day up and if that's what they feel they need they'll get it.


I think they did force this guy into a corner and then terrorized him to the best of their ability.

I trust that we are ALL in agreement that we need the exact facts to form more accurate opinions and would quite possibly be in total agreement on the side of truth and justice. Not a line drawn between LEO and non.

Jeff White
July 16, 2003, 12:12 PM
Intune,
How did they force him into the corner? How were they supposed to affect the arrest. Any arrest situation will be confrontational. What would you have done, waited until he decided to come in on his own?

I went over some reasons as to why it probably wasn't a good idea to attempt to arrest him at the 4th of July picnic.

He ran into the corner on his own. From what we've seen posted here, he knew about the warrant, the family knew about the warrant, he could have given himself up or he could have went with the local officers when they showed up at his door.

We don't know what transpired when the locals tried to arrest him. Did he threaten them? Did he say he was never coming out? We do know that they backed off, called the State Police then things went to pieces.

At Waco the BATF attempted to make a big public show of taking down a dangerous religous cult to influence congress during their budget hearings. No one knocked on the door and asked Koresh to surrender. All evidence indicates he would have. When word got the the BATF that their raid was compromised and the Branch Dividians were waiting for them, the BATF in their extreme arrogance and stupidity decided to drive on and go to war. Not exactly the smartest thing to do considering they knew Koresh had been preparing his followers for just such a confrontation.

That is why I am saying that the two situations are different. Woodring had the option to go in peacefully and he chose not to exercise it. Not that it ecuses how the State Police handled it once they were involved. It appears that there was poor judgement and tactics used. But I stand by my assertion that Scott Woodring ran into the corner on his own, precipitating the entire course of events. Waco may well have turned out differently if they had given Koresh the same option that Woodring had and didn't take.

Jeff

Intune
July 16, 2003, 01:38 PM
Jeff, you said: "At Waco the BATF attempted to make a big public show of taking down a dangerous religous cult to influence congress during their budget hearings. No one knocked on the door and asked Koresh to surrender. All evidence indicates he would have."


I thought that they did come to the front door & begin talking/explaining the warrant and then all heck broke loose with the end result being Koresh wounded (in the hip?) and his father-in-law standing behind him killed. The metal front door was never recovered (hmmm) and some believe that this was because it showed all bullet holes as coming INTO the building. I don't mean to sidetrack this thread but I found this-




July 06, 2000 | WACO, Texas -- The first casualties at Mount Carmel were neither cult members nor federal agents: They were five dogs. The biggest one was an 80-pound brown malamute named Fawn. The rest were Fawn's 10-month-old puppies.
The animals' demise has become a central issue in the Branch Davidians' $675 million lawsuit against the federal government because the shooting of the dogs apparently led to the ferocious Feb. 28, 1993 gun battle that left 10 people dead, including four agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and six Davidians. Ever since the shootout, the Davidians and the government have been arguing over which side shot first. And the picture emerging from the trial, now entering its third week, is that when the ATF began killing the dogs, the Davidians believed they were being attacked and began returning fire.

In testimony Wednesday, ATF agent Ken Latimer described the scene at Mount Carmel shortly after he exited a cattle trailer in front of the building. Latimer, who was riding in the second of the two cattle trailers used by the ATF, told the half-full courtroom that he heard sporadic gunfire near the entrance to the building shortly after he got out of the trailer. "At first I thought it was the dogs being shot," Latimer said. A few seconds later, Latimer said a volley of gunfire erupted from inside Mount Carmel.

While the dogs appear to be the reason the gun battle began, none of the witnesses who have yet testified has been able to say definitively which side was the first to shoot at humans.



Not DOGS again!!!

Jeff White
July 16, 2003, 02:30 PM
Intune,
I don't believe we'll ever know what happened at Waco. I seem to remember them knocking at the door and talking to Koresh through it, then the shooting started. There are a lot of differences between the start of the Waco debacle and the Woodring case.

At Waco the BATF spent months planning and training for this one operation. It was to be a big public show. They invited all kinds of media to come along. Why? Because they thought they would roll right in arrest Koresh and some others, get plenty of good pictures for the news of all the evil weapons (which congress was debating banning BTW) that were about to be unleashed on the defenseless public if wasn't for the brave and stalwart BATF agents. This was a political operation. It was designed more to sell the agency to congress then it was to enforce the law or protect the public. The BATF lied to the Army to get training and equipment from JTF6. Why, because it was all about the visuals.

Prior to last week in Michigan, Scott Woodring had been living his life without really bothering anyone that I am aware of. On one night he either (a) attempted to solicit underage girls for sex including attempting to hand them money. (speculation on my part based on the accounts posted here) or (b) attempted to get the girls to dress more modestly by offering them money to buy new clothes. (again speculation based on the news reports). The girls complained, an investigation was conducted and it was determined there was enough evidence to charge Woodring. Once an arrest warrant was issued, Woodring was given all kinds of time to turn himself in and an opportunity to surrender peaceully when the local officers came to arrest him. The differences between the two cases jump out at me.

It was only after Woodring barricaded himself in the house did the cases become so similar and have such a tragic outcome. I might be wrong, but I don't think the authorities in Michigan spent months setting this up. What could they have accomplished?

This has been a tragic event. It appears to have been very porly handled after the State Police took over. But the fact remains that Scott Woodring chose this path.

The BATF with their tactics pushed Koresh into the action he took. One could also probably say that the Michigan State Police pushed Woodring to the final outcome, but Woodring had a choice before it got to that point. The BATF on the other hand fullfilled Koresh's own gospel and teachings by showing up in force to arrest him. The local police gave Woodring the choice.

Jeff

bjengs
July 16, 2003, 02:48 PM
Jeff asked meWhy are you so convinced he's innocent? well after I saidobviously we don't know if the charges against Woodring are true or not, we'll wait to hear more.Not only do I believe in "innocent until proven guilty," but the man's family insists he was not soliciting sex, as opposed to the reports of the local media. I'll always believe the media LAST. Especially since Clinton/Reno declared open season on militia members a decade ago.

Intune
July 17, 2003, 11:21 AM
Still waiting on the EXACT caliber of the rounds that killed the LEO. Still waiting on the REASON to assault home. Why do I have the feeling that this is all going to be sanitized?

MicroBalrog
July 17, 2003, 11:43 AM
Because it will be?

jimpeel
July 17, 2003, 04:12 PM
Two grenades were detonated, shortly after which the building caught fire and was rocked by explosions.Fire, the new weapon of choice of the police; or has anyone here forgotten this one?

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=79131

Jeff White
July 17, 2003, 04:37 PM
Fire, the new weapon of choice of the police;

Yeah sure, we're looking to pick up some M202 Flash 66mm Incindiary rocket launchers from DOD on the 1033 program, probably just one in the shift commander's car to start, but hopefully we'll get one for each squad eventually :banghead:

Tear gas, flashbangs, smoke grenades are all fire hazards. Every Tactical Operations SOP I've ever seen calls for staging fire and EMS on the scene if you plan on using those munitions. If you read the thread you referenced you'll find several references to how flammible the materials are in a lot of homes.

Do you really believe that the object was to burn the house down?

I have yet to see any alternatives suggested.

Intune, I'm as sure as you are that the report that is released to the public will be sanitized. PR is everything in both the public and private sector. I don't agree, I think the public should be allowed to see the entire review of the operation they paid for. But there seems to be a distinct lack of openness in all areas of our society now. There was a failure of body armor made with zylon in Pittsburg IIRC a week or so ago. Fortunately the officer survived the shooting. But the manufacturer is stonewalling and even refusing to replace the other zylon vests that are in service. I think 8 years of the Clinton administration so corrupted our society that no one is willing to stand up and speak the truth any longer.

Jeff

grampster
July 18, 2003, 01:44 PM
Ok, Ok, I wasn't gonna get involved in this thread, but......I live about 15 miles from Fremont, Mi. I know who Woodring was. Have seen him around. He marched to a different drummer, was a guy who rode a bicycle around a large area and generally did not wear a shirt. He was paranoid about the government and was a fringe type religious zealot. He was basically harmless. Everybody on this board probably has seen folks like him or know someone like him.
First of all, I don't believe he accosted the two girls in question for the purpose of soliciting a sexual act. From what I know about the man I can see him approaching two teeny boppers in shorts and halter tops and making "biblical" statements with referance to their clothing and how they appeared to be "like" prostitutes and probably even made mention of the fact (for which he was accused and the warrant was issued) of saying something about "taking off your top and for $50.00 we can have a good time for an hour". His comments would probably been in the context of his extreme religious beliefs and were probably uttered cynically not laciviously. However, I can also visualize the girls believing that they were being accosted and he did follow them down the street while verbally addressing them. If they were not familiar with him, it would be grounds for misinterpretation on their part as they are only kids, afterall.

Where this all went wrong is when the local police tried to serve the warrant, Woodring retreated to another room and got a gun and the officers left. Woodring was wrong to do what he did. However, the officers knew him, knew his mindset. He was not an unkown quantity in the area. What happened then was the beggining of a siege by local and county leo's and the MSP. The family intervened at that point and attempted to get LE to let them talk him down.
The purpose always should be to DEFUSE the situation and bring it to an end PEACFULLY. MSP refused to allow the family to assist, and imho escalated the situation by then sending in tactical squad and a Trooper was killed. They had to know that with his beliefs, he would respond violently and given his mental proclivities, mindlessly. I am a former leo and I fully support the leo community but....In this instance that even tho Woodring retreated to another room and armed himself, the MSP lost control of the situation and made decisions that were not in the best interests of anyone, imho. The excuse for not using the family as an intervener by MSP was that they did not want to lose control of the situation.....which is exactly what they did by NOT involving the family. Woodring's actions and comments before the tactical guys went in tend to reinforce my guess about his behaviour with the girls. He was asking for an apology from the father.....probably because he, Woodring, was offended that a warrant was gotten against him for a crime he did not believe he commited, soliciting the girls for an immoral act. One will never know the truth actually, because I believe the girls definately felt threatened, but for not the reason they thought and Woodring is dead. Doesn't matter now, I suppose.
The point is now there are two widows, two orphans, devastated family members and a divided community because the MSP came on like "ninja boys with toys" rather than sitting back and giving some time to sort out the facts and try to deal with them in a way that would not lead to the tragedy that did occur. It makes me sad for everyone involved because this relatively innocuous situation spiraled so out of control..The onus is, in the end, on Woodring because if he would have submitted to the warrant, in all likelyhood within a couple of weeks the situation would have quietly disappeared. But the lesson to LE is that time is always on the side of the law and that violent behaviour does not always solve a situation.
I could say more, I suppose, but I am too saddened and depleated by the exercise that we all had to watch in my neighborhood that embodied so much tragedy which leads to so much armchair BS by folks who don't know what the h*** really happened. Probably we never will, but there is enough blame to hand around to a lot of folks.

grampster

Intune
July 19, 2003, 11:38 AM
I want to know who said what, when and why. I know that I sound like a broken record but sheesh! Do I get to take a couple of weeks with a few of my lawyers huddled together to make a statement as to why I shot somebody or burned their house down? This whole thing is really starting to stink. Do they tape negotiations? Were there dash cams on in any of their cars when he was killed?

Jeff said: "I think 8 years of the Clinton administration so corrupted our society that no one is willing to stand up and speak the truth any longer."

I don't know if we can lay it all at Slick's feet but it would be a good start! What ever happened to truth & honor? When a person loses their sense of honor they are truly lost.



:(

Malone LaVeigh
July 19, 2003, 02:00 PM
I wonder if there's any possible misdeed in the universe that someone around here can't find a way to lay at the feet of Bill Clinton. I'm sure he thanks y'all for keeping his memory alive.

Dishonesty among law enforcement in this country goes back as far as you could stand to look. Remember J. Edgar Hoover?

JohnBT
July 19, 2003, 02:44 PM
Thanks for the info grampster.

As far as your statement about "...the girls believing that they were being accosted...", it sounds to me like they were accosted by a possibly shirtless man following them down the street talking trash at them. Shame he didn't stick to minding his own business.


Malone LaVeigh - Dishonesty can be traced all the way back to Adam & Eve. And Bill is still a loser.

John

Orthonym
July 19, 2003, 03:25 PM
Wasn't Mr B(illy) J(eff) Clinton just following one of those "Rules for a Gunfight" we've seen posted here and elsewhere? (i.e., "Always cheat, always win!):rolleyes:

MicroBalrog
July 19, 2003, 03:48 PM
As far as your statement about "...the girls believing that they were being accosted...", it sounds to me like they were accosted by a possibly shirtless man following them down the street talking trash at them.

Oh, so "allegations of possible dirty talk" are good enought to burn someone house down?

Great place, America.

Land of the free, home of the brave. [/Sarcasm]

Intune
July 19, 2003, 03:57 PM
Jeff, are there "flashbangs" made for outdoor use only? And it seems as if they were shooting them in. The only ones I've seen were thrown. Are there different kinds?

Jeff White
July 19, 2003, 09:52 PM
Intune,
I don't know what kind of distration devices they used. I will check around and see about 37 and 40mm DDs. I really have no idea what they shot in from the APC.

Malone,
Everything comes from the top down. We had eight years of in your face lies and deceptions and spin from the Clinton administration. I do believe that the attitude that the ends justify the means and that "it all depends what your definition of is, is" has a lot to do with Enron, the Martha Stewart deal, Worldcom, and the general idea that's rampant in our society now, that it's ok to liee steal and cheat as long as you achieve the desired outcome. I'm not silly enough to believe that the Clinton's were the first administration to do this, but they were definately the first one to be in our face with it. They not only got away with it, but thumbed their noses at everyone. Why should we be surprised that the attitude that if they can we can now is through and through our society and no one feels they should be held accountable for their actions.

Jeff

HBK
July 19, 2003, 10:13 PM
You are correct, Jeff. I can't believe people still defend Clinton. He and his ilk are a shining example of everything that is wrong with the US. So much went wrong on his watch...it just sickens me, yet he still has defenders.

jimpeel
July 19, 2003, 10:43 PM
Tear gas, flashbangs, smoke grenades are all fire hazards. Every Tactical Operations SOP I've ever seen calls for staging fire and EMS on the scene if you plan on using those munitions. If you read the thread you referenced you'll find several references to how flammible the materials are in a lot of homes.You will also find that the tear gas was thrown into an upstairs bedroom window where the most flammable items in any home are located.

Do you really believe that the object was to burn the house down?Not the direct object but if the house does burn down, so what. If the guy's still in there; so what. If he dies; so what.

I watched the debacle that followed the start of that fire and I know what I saw. There was a time, early on, where the water from the hose on the right, as one faces the rear of the home, was being directed directly into that bedroom window where the devices were thrown and the fire started. After a couple of minutes, the water stream was diverted to the roof of the adjacent house and the house was allowed to burn to the ground. What was never explained, and was speculated on conversationally by the newscasters narrating the scene was; why was the water stream diverted from the window? It was obvious an order was given and obeyed and that man was burned to death by the LEOs who had just lost "one of their own". No animus there I suppose.

Malone LaVeigh
July 22, 2003, 01:28 AM
This is hilarious. My OT point wasn't to defend Bill Clinton. It was to ridicule the poor souls that can't get over him. Guess it worked...

JohnBT
July 22, 2003, 07:52 AM
"Oh, so "allegations of possible dirty talk" are good enought to burn someone house down?"

MicroBalrog - Nowhere did I say that. Your juvenile attempt at logic, or humor, falls far short of being convincing or even entertaining. Try again if you like.

My comments were directed at a previous comment that made it sound like the old kook was harmless and really wasn't bothering anyone. He was it seems.

John

Jeff White
July 29, 2003, 02:09 AM
If this is true, there can be no excuse.....Who is director or whatever of the MSP?

Jeff

Target 8 Investigators unearth new information in aftermath of deadly standoff


By Henry Erb

(Grand Rapids, July 28, 2003, 4:46 p.m.) The television images were startling. The roof of suspect Scott Woodring's house lifted and a fireball rolled out the front door. Then the place burned to the ground. It happened during the second state police assault on the house. During the first assault three weeks ago Woodring allegedly killed state trooper Kevin Marshall.

After the fire, state police officials said they used "flash bangs" - common devices that make a loud noise and a blinding light to disorient barricaded suspects when police close in. But people familiar with those devices wondered if a more powerful explosive was used. Target 8 Investigators began asking questions.

Now in an exclusive interview, state police commanders have revealed more about what they did and what they were trying to do. Police now say they used a common industrial explosive called a cast booster, routinely found in mining or construction use to touch off even bigger explosives. The Division Commander of the MSP Forensic Science Division Capt. Michael Thomas says the flash bang is a pyrotechnic that "may cause you not to be able to see something for a short period of time." The booster blast they used "can incapacitate somebody."

And in fact an explosives industry official with law enforcement background is concerned that they used the devices for that purpose. Chris Ronay once headed the FBI Explosive Operations Group. He says the industry is "hesitant" to sell such devices to law enforcement for fear of law suits over what he called "improvised" uses.

"If you initiate a high explosive, TNT typed based product like a cast booster," he says, "in any proximity of people you're probably going to have casualties. Certainly the Institute of Makers of Explosives (IME); the industry would not recommend initiating one of these devices anywhere in the vicinity of people or property that you don't want damaged."

MSP officials say they were aware of the risk. They tossed the explosives into the first floor of the house "because of the potential for serious injury or death" says MSP Inspector Barry Getzen.

Police believed that Woodring was barricaded in the basement. In fact he wasn't in the house at all, it turned out. Getzen says police hadn't heard from Woodring in nearly 24 hours. They thought he was probably still inside but were worried that he might have escaped, was putting distance behind him and presented a threat to the public. That's why they launched the second assault some 24 hours after Trooper Marshall was shot to death.

Getzen says that in the first assault they used flash bangs and tear gas but with little apparent effect since Woodring was able to avoid the fatal fire. He says police in an armored personnel carrier used a loud speaker to tell Woodring what was going to happen.

"We announced we would introduce an explosive charge into his house," Getzen said. "We then followed that up with a larger amount of tear gas. And then following that, if he did not come out, we had a large excavating piece of machinery that we were going to use to start dismantling the house until we could locate him inside the house."

But after the explosive went in, the house caught fire and was fully engulfed in about four minutes, burning to the ground. Even without the fire, it's possible they would have destroyed the house anyway, especially since Woodring was gone.

"The intention was to keep dismantling the house and try to enter again," Getzen says.

Getzen says they'd already lost one man and were trying to minimize danger to their officers. Woodring reportedly had no insurance on the house. Target 8 investigators checked with the State Police, the Michigan Attorney General and even the Governor's office. Nobody could say whether the taxpayers will be paying for a new house for Woodring's widow.

hammer4nc
July 29, 2003, 07:44 AM
Thanks for the update, Jeff. Everyone's still holding their breath, waiting for the AAR; including the ballistics tests for wounds to the officer, compared to the weapons used by various actors on scene. Now to include details of the "distraction device" (hehe) used?

Its unfortunate, but the biggest lesson learned by officials from this incident will probably be: "establish larger outer perimeter". This would prevent video footage from ever being recorded; and the subsequent questions about the truthfulness of various pre-scripted news releases (including the ubiquituous "we think the suspect set the fire").

When the media is kept away, as in the Rainbow Farms incident a couple of years ago, no evidence will contradict the "official account of events". Clean, neat, efficient.

Intune
July 29, 2003, 08:36 AM
"MSP officials say they were aware of the risk. They tossed the explosives into the first floor of the house "because of the potential for serious injury or death" says MSP Inspector Barry Getzen."

"Getzen says they'd already lost one man and were trying to minimize danger to their officers. "

A10's & M1's. Why wait? They're just peasants.

Idiots! Does anyone want to step up to the plate and defend the on-scene commander? Think some more gems will be forthcoming? I do. What a FUBAR!







"Nobody could say whether the taxpayers will be paying for a new house for Woodring's widow."

Oh yeah. That & more. MUCH more. Idiots. :fire:

rrader
July 29, 2003, 10:21 AM
"MSP officials say they were aware of the risk. They tossed the explosives into the first floor of the house "because of the potential for serious injury or death" says MSP Inspector Barry Getzen."


This case and the use of the helicopter-delivered bomb dropped on the roof of the "Move" rowhouse in Philly years ago point the need for some more stringent Federal law limiting the types of weapons the LEO at all levels will be permitted to employ against citizens.

Constitutionally, if BATFE can exist at all then it can regulate explosives used by LEO as well as by mines & construction co.s.

And isn't this country in a pretty sad state when local LEO has to be put on a leash for these types of abuses. What's next, local LEO using Howitzers against barricaded suspects?

Don Gwinn
July 29, 2003, 01:06 PM
As far as I know, I'm going to be the first to mention this in this thread, and that's surprising:

To me, it looks like the fire, if anyone at all set it deliberately, had to be set by either Woodring or the cops. Agreed?

OK, so who had the motive and the opportunity? I think it's pretty clear that a flashbang did not create a pressurized fireball and lift the roof off the walls, so either:

1. The police lied and that was no flashbang, or

2. Woodring set up gas, gasoline, or some other accelerant or explosive to cause a massive fire. He may have planned to light it himself, but the concussion grenade set it off.


Now, which of those make more sense? I'm not sure. On the one hand, someone at the state police apparently told the press that the MSP believes the police set the fire deliberately.

On the other hand, we know that Woodring planned an escape pretty carefully and was dedicated to his plan, staying hidden for six hours and exploiting a window of opportunity to escape that couldn't have been more than a few minutes long. To me, this makes it entirely reasonable to suppose that he would have set up the house to burn as a way to create confusion, cover his escape, and perhaps make investigators assume he was dead until he'd had time to travel a bit.
In fact, it's not even inconceivable that he considered the possibility that a fire would create sympathy after Waco, MOVE, etc. I doubt that was as important a consideration as the simplicity and effectiveness of the diversion, though.


Frankly, I find it easier to believe that Woodring intended that house to burn all along.


In any case, the bottom line is that today, if you're accused of a crime you didn't commit, you go to court and dare 'em to prove it. Ask me again in 20 years and I may have a different view on that one, but not in 2003.

I'm frankly astounded at all the people who talk about taking on your local police department because you don't have money for a lawyer, or because they're going to be unfair to you in court and ruin your reputation. How exactly does a standoff followed by an ignominious death by shotgun salvage your reputation? Is that going to prevent financial ruin?

Remember, kids, generally speaking, the cops don't shoot you for jaywalking. They shoot you when you refuse to stop for them, or when you decide you have a right to jaywalk and open fire.

Jeff White
July 29, 2003, 02:29 PM
Don,
The fire was most likely the result of the IED (improvised explosive device read bomb) that the MSP introduced into the house. Even if Woodring had prepared the house to burn before he left, the explosives most likely ignited it. If true, (and I have no reason to doubt it because it came from an official source)

Now in an exclusive interview, state police commanders have revealed more about what they did and what they were trying to do. Police now say they used a common industrial explosive called a cast booster, routinely found in mining or construction use to touch off even bigger explosives. The Division Commander of the MSP Forensic Science Division Capt. Michael Thomas says the flash bang is a pyrotechnic that "may cause you not to be able to see something for a short period of time." The booster blast they used "can incapacitate somebody."

they have opened themselves up to all kinds of civil liability. Michigan law may allow them to use any force necessary, but they are going to have a hard time justifying the use of mining and quarrying demolitions in a police operation. Even if Woodring intended the house to burn, once the attorneys get a hold of this it's going to be very hard to prove that they intended to use an appropriate level of force. Assuming that the charges they used were TNT and guessing that they may have been 1/4 pound or larger, there would have been a significant danger of death or serious injury to unprotected bystanders from secondary missiles out to 300 meters or so. So we are left with the question of what is an appropriate level of force to use? Did the situation warrant the detruction of the house? I don't know, I wasn't there. None of us know what the people on the scene knew or thought. I'll withhold final judgement until the entire story is told. Right now I'm just confused. Based on the information I have, it doesn't look good.

That said, I'm going to stand by my initial statement that Scott Woodring should have surrendered to police when they initially came to arrest him. Ultimately he is responsible. It was a lawful warrant and he had no right to resist arrest. He had no right to escalate the situation to the point that force became necessary.

Jeff

dog3
July 29, 2003, 02:47 PM
Don,

THis is a bit off topic, but as to your assertion of " if you're accused of a crime you didn't commit, you go to court and dare 'em to prove it."

Well, I know I would very probably, 99.9 percent confident I would submit to any warrant issued, would certainly submit to arrest, but please know, as we are seeing now, that just being innocent isn't enough in court.

They will dare to prove it. They wouldn't accuse you otherwise. Nasty stuff like DNA evidence has released a number of folks from death row that simply put, DID NOT DO THE CRIME. Many more have been executed. It happens. Innocence ain't nearly enough.

They will take you up on that dare, you betcha!

jimpeel
July 29, 2003, 02:51 PM
(MSP Inspector Barry) Getzen says that in the first assault they used flash bangs and tear gas but with little apparent effect since Woodring was able to avoid the fatal fire.I reiterate: Fire, the new weapon of choice of the police.
To me, it looks like the fire, if anyone at all set it deliberately, had to be set by either Woodring or the cops. Agreed?

OK, so who had the motive and the opportunity? I think it's pretty clear that a flashbang did not create a pressurized fireball and lift the roof off the walls, so either:

1. The police lied and that was no flashbang, or

2. Woodring set up gas, gasoline, or some other accelerant or explosive to cause a massive fire. He may have planned to light it himself, but the concussion grenade set it off.
The answers to the above would be:

(Your no. 1 above) Now in an exclusive interview, state police commanders have revealed more about what they did and what they were trying to do. Police now say they used a common industrial explosive called a cast booster, routinely found in mining or construction use to touch off even bigger explosives.

(Your no. 2 above) Police believed that Woodring was barricaded in the basement. In fact he wasn't in the house at all, it turned out.

Jeff White
July 29, 2003, 04:31 PM
Our system of government is built of checks and balances to keep the rights of the people from being trampled by the needs of the state. One of the primary functions of state and local government is to investigate crime and punish criminals. Can we all agree on this point?

Scott Woodring was a person who held some beliefs that were not in the mainstream of our society. He was accused of a crime. Contrary to what some have implied in the two threads on this subject, I have seen no evidence or even accusations, that he was accused because of his beliefs.

When the accusation was made, the police investigated, and forwarded the results to the prosecuting attorney who reviewed the evidence and secured a warrant for Woodring's arrest. The police then attempted to serve the warrant and take Woodring into custody. At this point, Scott Woodring assumed total responsibility for the outcome.

Should the police have just left Woodring alone when he refused to submit to arrest? How many of you would be screaming incompetence or worse if that had been what happened? Especially if you had ties to the alleged victims. So can we agree that the police had a duty to take Woodring into custody and bring him before the court to face the charges?

When Woodring barricaded himself in the house, the local police called in the State Police who sent in a tactical unit and they began negotiating with Woodring. We can Monday Morning Quarterback this until all the bandwidth on this forum is gone, but no one here knows what was said in the negotiations. No one here is in a position to second guess the commander on the scene when he decided to enter the residence and take Woodring into custody the first time. The team entered the home and a Trooper was shot and subsequently died. At some point after the ill fated entry attempt, Woodring fled the house and escaped through the cordon of officers manning the inner perimeter. We know that they changed teams and another team of troopers came in and took over.

We don't know what they knew or thought they knew at this point, they haven't told us. Did they intend to destroy the house and kill Woodring in retaliation for the murder of Trooper Marshall? Did they think that the bigger explosions from the cast booster charges would shock Woodring into surrendering? Were they convinced by Woodring's militia background that that was the only way to end the seige?

We can't make any judgements until we know the answers to these questions. Comments like;

Fire, the new weapon of choice of the police.

A10's & M1's. Why wait? They're just peasants.

Oh, so "allegations of possible dirty talk" are good enought to burn someone house down?

Great place, America.

While a way to vent, don't add much to the investigation and coming to a consensus on what is the appropriate level of force to use.

While not perfect, because it is run by humans, our system works pretty well. The state can never back down in the face of force being used to stop it's lawful business. It may initially retreat until it musters enough force on it's own to take care of the situation, but it can never just back down totally. To suggest otherwise is to endorse anarchy. Let's not forget the alleged victims here. Without the police and the court system to defend them, where would we be. Perhaps some of you would have been happier had the girl's parents caught Woodring outside and hanged him after a good thrashing?

Personally, I can't believe that a large modern agency like the Michigan State Police would do something like throw IEDs into a suspect's home in 2003.

Jeff

Intune
July 29, 2003, 05:22 PM
"Police have stated that they felt that they would have to go in either Tuesday or in 30 days and that this was calculated risk that they had to take."

No one was scratched, injured or dead before this "calculated risk" was taken. I want to know what "formula" was used in this calculation that caused the death of an LEO and eventually, a citizen. MSP escalated the intensity of the standoff and they better of had a darn good reason. Mere impatience not being one! I don't think that they have squat for a reason or they would have stated it.

Scott was in the wrong by refusing to go along peacefully. Does defiance = death? Sure appears to be part of their "equation."

One of these days an old vet is gonna have some LAW's. With this shining example of LEO procedure, do any doubt M1's & gunships? I don't. Where is the stinkin' report? Journalists should be ALL over this.

hammer4nc
July 29, 2003, 11:30 PM
This news link contains video of the "flash-bang" device, lifting the roof of the house, and sending a fireball out the door. Those who expressed "doubt" that a large modern agency would actually do something like that are invited to review the video. The audio also mentions that six pounds of TNT (referring to the cast-booster charge) was used. I'm anxious to hear how that can be described, in the msp press conference, as a flash-bang. Anyone?

http://www.woodtv.com/Global/category.asp?C=2276&nav=0Rce

FWIW, another video on this site, shows the initial contact between Woodring and the two teenage girls, at the gas station, that started the whole incident. No audio.

Also, apparently Woodring did submit a signed, written statement about the initial incident. (At least one was briefly flashed on the video.) Wondering why that had never been mentioned before??? Woodring's father is shown asking for results from the ballistics investigation, also.

jimpeel
July 29, 2003, 11:52 PM
Personally, I can't believe that a large modern agency like the Michigan State Police would do something like throw IEDs into a suspect's home in 2003. I'm sure that there were also people who said "Personally, I can't believe that a large modern agency like the Philadelphia Police would do something like throw a satchel bomb onto a rowhouse in 1985."

You are simply experiencing a new level of incredulity; that's all. You will experience still another the next time they do something that makes this one look like small potatoes.

Jeff White
July 30, 2003, 12:18 AM
You are simply experiencing a new level of incredulity; that's all. You will experience still another the next time they do something that makes this one look like small potatoes.

Do you really believe that this will just be shrugged off? It won't. There will be an investigation, policies will be changed, some people may lose their jobs. The Michigan taxpayers will probably see a signifcant portion of their tax dollars go into a settlement. None of this will bring back either of the two dead men. But it's how things work. The lessons here will be spread through the law enforcement community. Agencies that don't already have policies in place forbidding the use of IEDs like this most likely will have soon (although after the Philidelphia incident, I can't believe that they did this).

I rather doubt that the Michigan State Police or any other agency is going on the market for surplus F16s, LGBs and GLLDs.

There was a time in the 20s and 30s where this would have happened and people wouldn't have thought much of it. I think we've come a long way from the unrestricted use of firepower by the police and in many cases deputized citizens when chasing bank robbers like Dillinger. Would you prefer to go back to those days?

How many SWAT deployments to arrest barricaded suspects do you think happen every year in this large nation of ours? How many of them end in tragedy the way this one did?

Jeff

Intune
July 30, 2003, 08:49 AM
Sure it will be shrugged off. How many lost their jobs or went to jail for M.O.V.E, Ruby or Waco? Did they learn their lesson? Oh, yeah. The lesson is that they can get away with it. "4 lbs or 40 for this one Jack?" The only failure in this operation is that a cop got killed.

They don't have to be in the market for an F-16 or heavy ordnance. They operate just like they did here and @ Waco. They "borrow" what they need to impose their will on the peon and then they return it. LEOMILITARY See, no line of distinction anymore. Wonder where the casting charge came from? "Hello, National Guard here. APC? You need one? No prob, on the way."

I don't know how many SWAT ops are performed each year. I don't know how many result in the death of a citizen. I don't know how many result in the death of an LEO. The only ones that I hear about are when a bomb is used, an officer dies and a citizen is killed. Anything less isn't important or news I guess. :(

Wildalaska
July 30, 2003, 06:04 PM
There was a time in the 20s and 30s where this would have happened and people wouldn't have thought much of it. I think we've come a long way from the unrestricted use of firepower by the police and in many cases deputized citizens when chasing bank robbers like Dillinger. Would you prefer to go back to those days?

I dont know, other than the high profile bandits, the crime rate was lower, people left their doors unlocked, criminals took it like men, guns were less restricted, whining was less prevelant.....

Seems to me that vigouously taking out scumbags has its beneifit..

WildgoodolddaysAlaska

DontShootMe
July 30, 2003, 07:15 PM
When THEY come for YOUR guns...
How do you think it will happen?

Will the military go door-to-door?

I doubt it.

I think it's going to happen in a scattered, randomly appearing way. You'll hear more and more about individuals or families who had their home 'raided' based on a 'tip' - then you'll hear about the 'arsenal' of machine guns and assault rifles which were confiscated for the good of the collective.

Actually, I think this has already begun.

I fear that most of us will not realize it's happening on a nationwide scale until it's too late.

jimpeel
July 31, 2003, 10:02 AM
Do you really believe that this will just be shrugged off?Yes. American's memories are becoming increasingly short as the glut of available information assaults their sensibilities.

How many SWAT deployments to arrest barricaded suspects do you think happen every year in this large nation of ours? How many of them end in tragedy the way this one did?I don't know but here's the list for you to check out.

http://www.stolenlives.org/read/

Wildalaska
July 31, 2003, 11:52 AM
"Stolen Lives", yep theres credibility for you...a project of the National Laywers Guild...

You know who they are dont ya?

WildfoolishnessAlaska

jimpeel
July 31, 2003, 06:02 PM
You know who they are dont ya?Don't know, don't care.

Is the info accurate?

Are the victims really dead?

Did the police cause their deaths?

Examples that have been discussed on TFL and these forums:

Cops Under Investigation After Killing Man During Raid On Wrong House (http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=29414)

Grandfather killed by cops; Y2K funds seized as Drug Money! (http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=23817)

City pays huge settlement for no-knock killing by LEO (http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=26055)

Oops! Wrong house. Someone injured. (http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=142069)

Oops! Wrong house, again. Someone died. (http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=39714)

Finally! Someone at least gets a slap on the wrist. Denver Officer Loses Wages for Raid (http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=53707)

Another drug raid gone wrong. (http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=33489)

And all for this:

The problem with no-knocks and "informants" (http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=25771)

And here is the reason this is all happening.

Militarization of the police (http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=54886)

I have spoken to senior LOEs who are pulling the pin and taking early retirement because they don't like what they see coming in on the front end of the force. They are tired of the ex-military cowboys that are being recruited into the forces who go to the gun as the first line of defense rather than the last. They are disheartened at the changes they see in their forces because of this. Only one of the guys I have talked to at ranges, etc., over the years had ever had to draw their weapon and then he didn't fire it.

Look at the number of rounds being discharged downrange in these incidents. Forty-one rounds fired at Diallo. Fifteen at Gallardo in Dinuba with a sub-gun in a single family home. What are they taking sub-guns into apartments and homes for?

In the Dinuba case, they disbanded the SWAT team and gave away the equipment. They also paid a record award for wrongful death. In the Mena case they paid an award for his death and the cop that instituted the raid was fired as I recall.

The fact is that the police are hyped up on adrenaline and power when they go into these raids and anyone who gets in their way is the enemy. Many of them are ex-military looking for a place to ply their killing skills that the military taught them.

Believe it or not, I am pro police. I am simply anti bad police. The good ones who have good officer presence and are able to keep deadly force out of the equation, or at least make it the last option, are the good cops. The ones who are going to the gun at the drop of a hat, and are abusive and rude right out of the chocks in a situation are the ones I hold in disdain. I've dealt with both.

JohnBT
July 31, 2003, 06:18 PM
"The audio also mentions that six pounds of TNT (referring to the cast-booster charge) was used."

Six pounds?

I just did a qucik search and the biggest one I found was 5 pounds. The small ones are ounces.

Six pounds of TNT? It's a wonder the walls didn't fly down the street.

John

If you enjoyed reading about "Militia Chaplain is Dead" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!