Raiding Wrong Home Parting Comment


PDA






GSMD Fan
September 19, 2003, 11:46 PM
As I have been quoted (twice) just want to add a parting comment on the earlier thread.

And of course I will be civil.

Taking a quote from an post without reading the entire post can present a false picture.

The quote about the capabilities of "my guys" going through a door does not mean they feel invulnerable, enjoy doing it, or intend to threaten/harm folks.
If you read the entire post I said mistakes are a no win situation for all involved. Nothing good comes out of it. It was good in the case listed no one was killed.

I wrote about the "guys" because I really can not believe that there are folks who think they will out fight a trained tactical team. And then they say the cops watch too many movies and have rambo fantasys. What I am saying is clear, when folks roll out of bed and shoot it out with a team of well armed men the bed roller will lose (getting one or two when you are dead does not mean much). Period. It doen't matter if you play paintball or have a FAL.

Regardless if the bed roller is a criminal or not this is horrible for all involved. Not to many LE want to take a life, especially an innocent one.

If you enjoyed reading about "Raiding Wrong Home Parting Comment" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
WonderNine
September 20, 2003, 12:17 AM
I really can not believe that there are folks who think they will out fight a trained tactical team.

The defender does have the advantage of knowing the turf.

Baba Louie
September 20, 2003, 12:33 AM
GSMDfan,

Yes, It would be a terrible thing to be an active participant in a "wrong address-no-knock-justified-self-defense-yet still dead as nails" situation... on either end.

Should any SWAT team come thru my door (or others who post here), I guess my problems in life would be over, period.

Yours (or said SWAT Team member) would be beginning, but would quickly be ruled "Justifiable Use of Force" by our local coroner's office.

No sweat for me. Don't know what my family would be going through tho', do you? For you guys... Maybe a little counseling from your chaplain, then back to work as usual.

Scary sometimes, those dynamic entry things, huh?

Just keep getting the right "bad guys" and you'll never hear a complaint outta me tho', I do appreciate that thin blue line being there when used properly (which is 99.999% of the time... and we never hear about those typically)

Adios

JohnKSa
September 20, 2003, 12:43 AM
For you it's about winning or losing.

You may not like it when I say you feel invulnerable, but the fact is that if you really thought there was a good chance you would get killed the next time you went in, you would change jobs.

For the homeowner it's not about winning or losing, it's about living or dying--or even worse. It's also not about SWAT coming in, about getting roughed up or tasered. It's about home invaders, about getting to watch your daughter raped while your wife is forced to cook them a meal.

I don't worry about "losing". I'm not going to try to "outfight" anyone. I don't even think there's a good chance that I'll live through it. My resistance isn't a product of my competitive nature, or even necessarily a struggle to survive. I plan to resist because because I can not tolerate what might happen if I don't.

The fact that you can actually use terms like "lose" or "outfight" in this context is amazing to me. It makes it abundantly clear how differently you view this than I do.

Besides, it's not like I'm planning to try take out a SWAT team. I'm not even planning on "getting one or two when I am dead". This isn't about SWAT. It's about criminals breaking into my house. I'm preparing to defend my family against HOME INVADERS. You make it sound like I WANT SWAT to come in, like I'm planning for SWAT to come in. I don't want ANYONE to come in, but the main point is that I DON'T want LEOs bursting into my house in the wee hours because there is no way I can reliably figure out that they're the "good guys" in the time I have to make the decision.

The entries are planned for darkness--for the time when the subject is maximally disoriented. Then the confusion is magnified by lots of noise and bright lights. How can a maximally disoriented person read what's written on someone's shirt in the dark while lights are being shined in his eyes?

Even if he could, how would he automatically know it was the police and not a gang who knew how to use a spray can and a stencil?

How am I supposed to decide whether to shoot or not in the instant that I have to make the decision?

Admittedly, the wrong address scenario is reasonably improbable. But, there is a much more probable scenario. Let's say tonight my home is invaded. With this discussion on my mind, I hesitate, I try to give the invaders the benefit of the doubt. But it's not LEOs with the wrong addess, it's the real deal and my hesitation results in the unthinkable.

YOU'RE the expert--YOU tell me what to do. Should I resist? Or should I offer no resistance and hope for the best? It sounds like you're hinting that no resistance is the best option--which it is--FOR YOU! What about for me? What's the best option for me given that it's much more likely that I'll be facing criminals, not LEOs?

50 Freak
September 20, 2003, 01:02 AM
I don't think the majority of "your boys" like kicking in any doors. Nor are they rambo types. They have a difficult job and do a pretty good job at it. That was never the arguement. The point of contention was that if a no-knock warrant was ever done against a typical highroader/falfiler/AR15.com member. It would be a very unfortunate no win situation. The outcome would most likely be a bunch of children being made orphans.

I don't think people actually said they would win out against a trained team of swat officers. The majority of members here have no illusions of holding off the entire army with a 10/22 and a swiss army knife. However I do think that a well armed person who knows his terrain and with somewhat talent at firearms/tactics, can make it "costly" to any advancing team of swat guys. Even swat teams are not invincible. Their body armor will not stop all rounds, and believe it or not, a well place round (whether or not it is a 22 or 50 bmg) will drop one of your guys as it will us.

Do you think if every time a swat team went out with one member not coming back, swat membership would be so coveted? You may not like to admit it, but you are vulnerable. Body armor or not.

Just a parting point. Remember what happened to the FBI guys at Waco. Got their butts handed back to them by the Davidians in the initial firefights.

Travis McGee
September 20, 2003, 01:14 AM
GSMD Fan:
Something else to consider: some folks, if they were terrorized or lost a family member to a "wrong address" SWAT raid gone bad would not merely write letters to the editor, or file civil suits.

It can be a long walk across the parking lot at Target. Nobody lives in black kevlar 24/7.

Blueduck
September 20, 2003, 01:38 AM
Their body armor will not stop all rounds, and believe it or not, a well place round (whether or not it is a 22 or 50 bmg) will drop one of your guys as it will us.

Who's "your guys" and "us".:confused:

Fella behind the mask is just another citizen trying his best to do his job right and go home to his family, just like the guys driving the bread truck or checking out folks at the grocery register. Yeah on a rare occasion a bread truck has an accident and kills a pedistrian, if so the driver should be punished but you rarely hear folks telling the wonder bread guys to watch there backs in parking lots...

I'm against the ninja mask and such myself but behind the bull of (fire/identity protection) the idea was to project a fearsome image that would cause bad guys to give up so everybody gets out of a bad situation safely without a shot fired.

Sometimes I think though that strategy has worked too little on the bad guys, and too much on folks who would normally be genereally supportive of law enforcement.

JohnKSa
September 20, 2003, 01:52 AM
Fella behind the mask is just another citizen trying his best to do his job ... you rarely hear folks telling the wonder bread guys to watch there backs in parking lots
Agree that was a bit over the top. I'm really hoping he was just making an observation or a comment about human nature.

But the analogy is a bit weak--wonder bread guys don't break into people's houses and (taser them /rough them up/cuff them/shoot them) by mistake.

50 Freak
September 20, 2003, 01:56 AM
Who's "your guys" and "us".

Sorry.... for the sake of this discussion "your guys" is the LEO/swat and "us" is the average Joe Blow.

The entire discussion was about how a Swat team effected a no-knock to the wrong address. It then progressed to how if a swat effected a no-knock in the middle of the night to your average gun freak, the outcome would be either a dead citizen, dead swat guy or both. No one wins in this situation (especially if it was a wrong address as the taxpayers will very likely end up flipping the bill for a wrongful death suit). Then it just went down hill from there.

And the watch your back comment was a little risky, but to tell you the truth, it is true. There is no way to gauge how an individual who had lost his family to a wrongful death would react. Human nature is just plain unpredictable. Look at what happens when people get fired from their jobs now a days, they come back looking to wipe out all those the "wronged" them.

Blueduck
September 20, 2003, 02:29 AM
John, I think it's a fitting anology or should be. Wonder Bread truck driver can run over your child on the highway- they should not of course- but seeing how many wonder bread trucks are on the road at any one time it's gonna happen eventually to somebody. Running over someone accidentally while in the preformance of your job is just as bad as tasering the wrong guy by mistake IMHO. SWAT teams should not break into the wrong house, but considering the number of raids across the country, gotta figure it's gonna happen again eventually as well. :(

I'm not minimizing this incident, this was a screwup that every human effort should be used to avoid. The people who failed to do this should pay with both jobs and civil liability (not just some official handing out your tax dollars for a settlement). It could have been WAY more trajic than it was.

Hard problem to deal with using this method of entry or not. My father was friends with a Patrolman in the 70's who believed in the "just knock on the door, be polite approach" till he knocked one day and got a 12 gauge slug thru his belly for the trouble. I think most would agree this type of entry is at least sometimes needed, but should be planned and executed as carefully as humanly possible.

However talking about "us" versus "them", head shots, police looking around over their shoulders in parking lots??? It's a little much for me over this deal. Most of those guys in the scary mask are decent folks just trying to do the best job they can with the information they have at the time, just like the rest of us are doing on our jobs everyday.

WonderNine
September 20, 2003, 03:00 AM
Agree that was a bit over the top. I'm really hoping he was just making an observation or a comment about human nature.

But the analogy is a bit weak--wonder bread guys don't break into people's houses and (taser them /rough them up/cuff them/shoot them) by mistake.

SOME cops seem to have this childish belief that THEY'RE the only people who take the fall when they do something wrong and everyone else gets off scott free.

Reminds me of this thread:

http://www.glocktalk.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=184529

I'm Coffindodger! btw.

WonderNine
September 20, 2003, 03:03 AM
Oh, apparently the thread was just closed as I posted that. We can't have any intelligent debate in "Cop Talk" over on Glocktalk now can we???

That place is a joke.

riverdog
September 20, 2003, 11:18 AM
It all comes down to perception. The good guy homeowner doesn't expect a SWAT team to force their way into his home because he's a good guy homeowner. The SWAT team OTOH figures anyone in the house their raiding is a potential bad guy because it's a no-knock raid, they have a warrant. While neither side is considering that SWAT may be raiding the wrong house, both sides could end up shooting a good guy -- nobody wins.

I found this Drug Warriors (http://www.aros.net/~hempower/drugwar/casualties/93-95.html) link doing a google search on a botched San Diego raid back in '92-'93. Personally I'm all for LE doing what they can to halt the drug trade, but botched raids do more harm than good. They squander valuable resources and destroy trust of LE. The San Diego business executive, Donald Carlson referred to in the link actually shot a SD Deputy during the raid on his home. He was also shot but both parties lived. Another bad informant.

I'm sure LE has procedures in place to eliminate raids at the wrong house or even on the right house (where nothing illegal is taking place) as in the Carlson situation. But bad raids continue. Carlson happened over 10 years ago and here we are, more of the same. LE needs to seriously beef up their non-informant intelligence prior to conducting a raid. Someone on the entry team needs to have seen the place first-hand prior to the raid so that he knows where the correct house is and he knows that bad guys live there. Relying on a back of the envelope map drawn by a trailer park manager isn't my idea of good intel. Relying on the word of an informant even DEA doesn't trust (Carlson case) isn't my idea of good intel. OOPS doesn't cut it.

edit: another LINK (http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cjs13.htm) It would be more than a year before I would learn that the U.S.
government in the person of San Diego U.S. Attorney Allan Bersin, had
decided to settle with Mr. Carlson, avoiding a trial and the public
revelations of my reports. Mr. Carlson's attorney made a public
statement that by settling without a trial the misdeeds of the
government were being covered up. The government paid Mr. Carlson 2.75
million. Part of the final agreement was that the government's reports
of its own actions, be classified.

The U.S. Attorney of San Diego, made a public statement exonerating the
agents and prosecutors of all wrongdoing. He said that "the system"
failed Mr. Carlson, but that the agents and prosecutors were to be
commended for having done their jobs.

goon
September 20, 2003, 11:43 AM
My only reponse is that you guys better just get the right address.

Intune
September 20, 2003, 12:03 PM
It's not a pro-LEO or an anti-LEO thing. It's a door to my castle being breached by invaders thang! As far as "our" team being better than "your" team, all I can venture is that there would probably be more grieving families than a visit to a nonshooters home. That in itself is sad enough for me to just leave it there. Let's try working together in our communities to remove the cause for the perceived need of these type warrants. Sorry guys, waxing unrealistically a bit this a.m. It all just strikes me as such a waste. Have no fear, I'll snap back to my cynical self soon.

TallPine
September 20, 2003, 12:12 PM
considering the number of raids across the country, gotta figure it's gonna happen again eventually as well.
And therein lies the problem ... too many raids.

It is unfortunate that these threads can get so "uncivil" - I have tried to always be civil even when violently [edit: poor word choice, should have said "vehemently"] disagreeing with someone. I apologize if anyone thinks I have ever crossed the line.

My problem is not with the LE individuals taking part in these raids (well, most of them, anyway) but rather with the whole strategy of using "no-knock" raids for routine arrests and drug raids.

The first I ever heard of this was back in the 70s (I think) when the argument was that drugs would flushed down the toliet by the time police gained entry via a normal knock and display warrant. Oh yeah, that sounds reasonable if you think the War on (people using) Drugs is a good thing (which I did, back then) but really, if your whole case hinges on finding a few ounces of dope, then you don't need to be doing dynamic entry to begin with.

Sure, a LEO may get shot serving a warrant to someone's door, just as one may get shot during a routine traffic stop. So ... should all traffic stops now become "felony stops" ...?

Sooner or later (or maybe already?) a SWAT type officer is going to get killed (possibly justifiably) when doing a dynamic entry. Is that individual less dead than the one that died knocking on a door?

I don't want any LEO to get shot or killed. I do want dangerous criminals to be locked up so that they can't hurt anyone else.

But when an honest citizen hears his or her door being broken down in the middle of the night, and has to wonder whether this is a band of raping criminals or a helmeted SWAT team, then there is something terribly wrong with our society and the policies we employ to try to protect it.

J Miller
September 20, 2003, 01:02 PM
I've held back on posting on any of the threads concerning NO-KNOCK home invasions.
But I think I can make these comments now.


There are no grounds for any no knock raid, on any house, for any reason,
~except~ a hostage situation where the hostage is at risk of iminent death.
There are just to many tactics that can be employed to capture criminals, or identify unsuspecting law abiding citizens in warrent situations.

The no-knock, night time raid is simply an instrument of terror.

The ski masks worn by SWAT team members are also an instrument of terror, and I consider ANY LEO that wears one to be a criminal.

The use of military uniforms by civilian LEO's is unjustifiable, and is also an instrument used to terrify people.

Civilian LEO's have no justifiable NEED for selective fire weapons of any kind.

The use of night time surprise no-knock raids, combined with ski masks,
black military uniforms, selective fire weapons, flash bangs, screaming, yelling, and brutality serves only one purpose. To create terror in a population that has lost it's respect for the various police departments.
~If they don't respect us, let them fear us.~

If I offend any civilian police officers on this forum, too bad. By condoning this style of government sanctioned criminal activity, you deserve my disrespect.

Blueduck
September 20, 2003, 02:04 PM
Civilian LEO's have no justifiable NEED for selective fire weapons of any kind.

I'd tend to agree with that statement with the exception of Border Patrol officers who have on occasion needed heavy fire power to escape from the fully decked out Mexican Army units. Special problem,special solutions. Using "special" solutions for everyday problems is a disaster in the making.

As a Parole officer I'm kinda in that vauge "sort of" LEO category but 95% of the time tend to side with them. I know guys who do wear mask and to this point at least everyone of them I've met has been a more than decent sort most members here would enjoy the company of. Individual experiecnes can lead to broad assumptions on both sides of the issue.

Henry Bowman
September 20, 2003, 02:15 PM
Most of those guys in the scary mask are decent folks just trying to do the best job they can with the information they have at the time, just like the rest of us are doing on our jobs everyday.
Take off the masks. That would be a start. True undercover LEO's don't need to be doing raids. There is no justifiable excuse If you're wearing a mask to conceal your identity, especially when invading a home, you are to be presumed to be a bad guy. :fire:

einnor1040
September 20, 2003, 04:31 PM
Anybody trying to come in to my house at anytime with a mask on is considered a bad guy. I will shoot to kill. No questions asked. PERIOD.

Quartus
September 20, 2003, 05:05 PM
There are no grounds for any no knock raid, on any house, for any reason,
~except~ a hostage situation where the hostage is at risk of iminent death.
There are just to many tactics that can be employed to capture criminals, or identify unsuspecting law abiding citizens in warrent situations.

The no-knock, night time raid is simply an instrument of terror.

The ski masks worn by SWAT team members are also an instrument of terror, and I consider ANY LEO that wears one to be a criminal.

The use of military uniforms by civilian LEO's is unjustifiable, and is also an instrument used to terrify people.

Civilian LEO's have no justifiable NEED for selective fire weapons of any kind.

The use of night time surprise no-knock raids, combined with ski masks,
black military uniforms, selective fire weapons, flash bangs, screaming, yelling, and brutality serves only one purpose. To create terror in a population that has lost it's respect for the various police departments.
~If they don't respect us, let them fear us.~

If I offend any civilian police officers on this forum, too bad. By condoning this style of government sanctioned criminal activity, you deserve my disrespect.



Amen, J Miller.


BAck up from the situation for a moment and try to consider this in the light of history. Does anyone seriously think the Founding Fathers would have approved of civilian police using such terror tactics? And he's right - they are terror tactics.


I'm adamantly opposed to legalizing drugs. But I'm even more opposed to letting America become a police state.

But it is. Mostly due to the blind LAW AND ORDER types.

Pilgrim
September 20, 2003, 05:18 PM
I can envision a wrong address raid happening at a home where the owner has given some thought to defending against a home invasion robbery. By being prepared and having some warning, he cleans clock and the county coroner is extremely busy.

The homeowner survives and is terribly distressed that he made a mistake, just as the officers hit the wrong address in error. At his trial for murder he maintains over and over he thought he was being robbed. The night before his defense attorney asks for a summary dismissal of charges prior to the case going to the jury for deliberation, a small group of ex special operators hits the judge's house at the same time the officers hit the defendant's house. The same tactics are used and the judge is left trussed up like a Christmas turkey. Then the group leaves. A phone call to the local police department tells them to go rescue the judge. Any bets on how the judge will rule on the motion for dismissal?

Pilgrim

WilderBill
September 20, 2003, 06:40 PM
I can't speak for others, but if I hear someone breaking into my home, I will assume they are criminals, are a threat and will only stop when I stop them.
If they claim to be police, I need to see some real ID, not a shirt that anyone can buy. I need something like a drivers license, badge, warrent and a name at the local cop shop I can call for verification.
If I see a mask, I'm looking at a criminal and a coward until proven otherwise.
I beleive that if every time LE hits the wrong house, the entire entry team and chain of command were to be swiftly executed, there might be a lot more thought given to getting the right address.
But that's just me...and maybe a few million others.

Edited because my fingers seem to keep getting the key next to the right one.

JohnKSa
September 20, 2003, 06:45 PM
Blueduck,

To make the analogy correct, a wonder bread truck driver's job would be running over "criminals" with a truck driver accidentally running over a "non-criminal" by mistake now and then.

Your analogy makes it sound like breaking into houses is generally a good thing, like delivering bread or checking groceries, and it's only bad when you break into the wrong house by mistake.

What you're not getting is that the act of breaking into a house which may contain people who have not been convicted of any crime is NOT a good thing. It's not like delivering bread or checking groceries, it is, in fact, a BAD thing. BY LAW, all of those people, are innocent (until PROVEN guilty in COURT--remember?) and are entitled to defend themselves and their homes with deadly force if they feel threatened. Even someone with an assault warrant against him is entitled to defend himself and his family from a home invasion. That means that even in the case when the right house is raided, the occupants can legally defend with deadly force (unless they realize it's the cops coming in) and the LEOs by law can legally come in pointing guns.

The ONLY time two people should be able to legally engage each other with weapons (i.e. neither one breaking any law) is in war.

So, I repeat: Your analogy is weak. Raiding houses is not a job like delivering bread or checking groceries. It is, in a very real sense, creating a tiny war zone on the scene of each raid. And that, my friend, is VERY screwed up. That's true even if the right house is targeted. When the wrong house is targeted, it goes beyond being merely screwed up and is absolutely criminal.

F4GIB
September 20, 2003, 07:09 PM
Defending your home from ninja's is legal. Here's an example.

State v. Housley, 322 N.W.2d 746 (Minn.,1982).
Defendant, awakened from an afternoon nap, who shot plainclothes police officer after officers gained dynamic entry into defendant's home in attempt to execute search warrant, was convicted before the District Court, Hennepin County of first-degree assault, and he appealed. The Supreme Court held that evidence failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant's fear of great bodily harm had been unreasonable. REVERSED.

After a conviction below for which the trial judge sentenced the defendent to the minimum sentence (the judge lacking the moral and intellectual courage to grant a directed verdict or NOV), the Minnesota Supreme Court decided, as a matter of law that defendent's response to a botched warrent service by firing at the "intruders" was an act of self defense and no reasonable jury could have determined otherwise. FWIW, at that time the court had a majority of former prosecutors in its panel.

JShirley
September 20, 2003, 07:14 PM
I have no problem with Law Enforcement having virtually any kind of armament...as long as regular citizenry can have the same. To have otherwise, goes against the principles of equality this country was based on.

The instrument of control should not be force, but the will of the people.

John

Cal4D4
September 20, 2003, 08:36 PM
Civilian choice of weapon can be based on whim or desire. LE choice of weapon can only be based on demonstrable need. Civilian LE are not/should not act as assault troops.

TheeBadOne
September 20, 2003, 09:11 PM
"Anybody trying to come in to my house at anytime with a mask on is considered a bad guy. I will shoot to kill. No questions asked. PERIOD."Guess I'll skip your house on October 31st ! :eek:

WonderNine
September 20, 2003, 09:15 PM
:rolleyes:

And that's all I've got to say about that....

</Forrest Gump>

Waitone
September 20, 2003, 09:22 PM
How much of the chest thumping evident on this thread would disappear if LE took pains to see to it that mistakes like wrong no-knock addresses are punished quickly, thoroughly, and finally (I'll ignore discussion of whether or not no-knocks should exist). Seems to me there ought to be fences constructed by our so-called constitutional "rights" beyond which LE will tread only with great fear and trepidation.

SEAL training is rigorous for good reason. I'm told one of the hard and fast unwritten rules is you will not injure another seal. Do so and the offender simply disappears from the teams. No recourse, no appeal, no muss, no fuss. . . . .the offender just goes away.

I would personally like to see that ethic employed with respect to erroneous no-knocks. Some one (one specific individual ultimately screwed up) and therefore inflicted at a minimum terror and lethal force on an innocent person living in the US. When that occurs those responsible should simply go away. Loss of career, loss of pension, loss of prestige, loss of reputation, loss of chance to ever earn another dollar in law enforcement.

Harsh? I think not. I think the most effective law code is the simplest law code. You wanna bully Americans under the auspicies of the constitution? Go ahead but be advised the cost of failure may well be more than you are willing to accept.

Now compare my simpleminded suggestion with what happened to those responsible for Ruby Ridge and Waco. Looks to me now the ethic is if you screw up and get caught violating the rights of those protected by the constitution you get promoted, bigger paycheck, bigger offices, and greater responsibility.

Travis McGee
September 21, 2003, 01:26 AM
Pretty heavy thread. I think that in 95% of cases, a homeowner is going to be dazed and blinded by the "distraction device" (flash bang grenades) and the first thing he will see after that will be arc-welder-bright Sure-Fire lights under the barrels of MP-5s, aimed at his head in as he lies in bed.

He'll never even see the screaming JBTs behind the lights. He'll be rolled onto his belly with a gun in his neck and flex-cuffed without seeing a human being, much less being able to shoot back at one.

If he somehow rolls for his bedside table gun, he'll be Swiss cheese in two seconds.

As if it ended there! That kind of Gestapo terror raid, inflicted on free American citizens, is intolerable! "War on drugs" be damned!

And any JBTs had better consider carefully that they will NOT live the rest of their lives in black kevlar and face masks! JBTs who want a "normal life," to include softball, golf, fishing and shopping at Wally World, had better consider that not all citizens will accept a 3 AM terror raid inflicted on their family as an "oops! sorry!"

tommytrauma
September 21, 2003, 01:46 AM
TallPine said: But when an honest citizen hears his or her door being broken down in the middle of the night, and has to wonder whether this is a band of raping criminals or a helmeted SWAT team, then there is something terribly wrong with our society and the policies we employ to try to protect it.

That simply had to be repeated. It pretty much sums up everything.

We all agree that 'mistaken address no-knocks' will be a fact of life as long as the current policies are in place. Thus, we all are tacitly agreeing that current policies put innocent Citizens at risk, often simply to preserve a little evidence by not allowing any time for it to be destroyed. How in God's name can anybody defend this practice????

If someone kicks in my door and comes charging in, I'm going to actively defend me and mine. The only other option is to passively submit, and HOPE that it's the police making a mistake. Given the ratio of real home invasions to mistakes by the constabulary, I'm statisticially better off defending myself than not.

Erik
September 21, 2003, 02:42 AM
Arguments aside, veiled/borderline threats against the lives of LEOs are decidedly un-Highroadish.

It is also why some LEOs wear those masks which are such a sticking point to many.

Travis McGee
September 21, 2003, 03:17 AM
Maybe if they didn't choose to take a job where they wear black ski masks and smash down the doors and break in the windows of sleeping citizens at 3 AM, throwing in stun grenades, screaming obscenities, terrorizing and traumatizing the women and children for the rests of their lives, stomping kittens for jollies, throwing pregnant women so hard they miscarry, shooting 11 year old handcuffed boys already lying prone on the floor in the back with shotgun slugs, etc etc etc, no veiled threats would be forthcoming.

You might want to consider the type of country we're becoming, sometime, when all of that happens, and NOTHING happens to the JBTs involved.

madmike
September 21, 2003, 03:45 AM
Opinion/question.

Opinion: There are no grounds for a no-knock entry other than hostages. A dynamic entry prefaced by "POLICE!" is occasionally justified.

Think about it...you're worried someone will flush a bag of weed? For that you'll shoot them or get shot?

You're worried they'll shoot at you? Then back off and try THINKING rather than REACTING. Novel concept, eh? This is why military experts study LOGISTICS and STRATEGY. Amateurs study TACTICS. And what do they call these things? "Tactical" teams. Tactics is what you do after you've screwed up. So calling it that is an admission of failure.

Sure, they work. Against someone asleep, blasted, glared, gassed, outnumbered, outgunned (liberal rhetoric aside, the cops outgun me), by troops in armor. Would you do it one on one? (No criticism there--the only fair fight is one my people win with no casualties...but in a BEDROOM? When the alleged good guys START it?)

Otherwise, what can't be handled with a knock on the door or a bullhorn?

Sadly, my personal experiences as a victim of crime the last two years have soured me on police competence. I will resolve any further dispute myself, and not waste taxpayers' money with a call to the cops--around here, it's a waste of time. They're rude, stupid, pencil-pushing, thuggish jerks, and I want nothing to do with them. And I speak as a victim, not a criminal. Yet we're told that this is one of the better departments. I realize this opinion will eventually cause trouble for me, but I will at least have made an honest attempt at resolution, rather than running to the principal's office to be told I brought it upon myself.

Question: (and the technical questions are for research, so please answer if you can)

As I look around the house right now, there's a dozen Tonka trucks in front of the door, and a bookshelf primed to bounce said door back.

In front of the window is a couch containing two sleeping children, two stainless lamps and several hundred building blocks, some of them round.

In front of another window is a sink full of dishes, a shelf and several large glass jugs for wine.

In front of two others is a bunk bed and dresser.

In front of one is a bathroom, small, tight and with a slick, wet floor (my kids are THOROUGH in their messmaking).

In front of the other two are dressers, boxes and lamps, with some masks and objets-de-art.

Now...which way would you come in? How would you avoid tripping and tangling? Would you come in shooting at anything that moved? Or wait for the first brain bucket to come flying back out the window full of scrambled brains? Because it would. Not because I wish ill, but because I would legitimately fear for my life. How many do you think I'd get, shooting at silhouettes exposed and tangled?

And, extrapolating, if the children, whom I love more than life itself, were killed in the raid, bad feelings, million $ settlements and "honest mistake" diatribe aside, would you really BLAME a grief-stricken, outraged father for hunting down and exterminating the perpetrators like botulism bacilli?

WHY do you engage in no-knock raids? Is it "Just a job"? Because if it is, I am sorry to say I have no respect for you.

Is it something you know is wrong, that you put up with? Because if it is, I am sorry to say I have no respect for you.

Is it something you enjoy and feel justified in doing? Because if it is, I am sorry to say I have no respect for you.

No-knocks are immoral, dangerous, feloniously criminal and are going to get you, or someone else, grievously hurt. Maybe not this week, but eventually. The courageous act here would be to refuse, rather than "just following orders."

Please note: I wish no ill, I offer no threats. The end result of such a "mistake" would involve at least two dead, me one of them. I have no desire to die. But I _WILL_ kill intruders, and keep killing them until unable to, which means dead myself. If I survived, I'd need a heavy dose of therapy myself to deal with the regret of killing other people, who were acting with what they felt were good intentions. (Or, "just a job" to feed the kids...but there's MUCH safer and more moral ways to earn a living.)

Note, though: I'd have no choice. Faced with armed thugs, I would have to fight. You DO HAVE A CHOICE. To terrorize or not to terrorize. You apparently choose to terrorize. Again, why?

There's an easy way to avoid such mistakes: Don't make them. You have sirens, lights, bullhorns. You have radios. You can surround a place. Where are they going to GO? Patience is not only a virtue, it's a tool.

And if the reason you can't be patient is because the evidence might be flushed...it's really not that significant of evidence, then, is it?

standingbear
September 21, 2003, 06:36 AM
there are sherriffs like the tv series mayberry.there are also barney fifes out there.then there are the other types.takes all kinds.they are all human and being as such will no matter how much training they recieve..will make mistakes.citizens(or civilians as some of them call us) are also human beings.we pay their salary.being that this is america and our mindset being home of the free,we believe in fighting to protect our lives and freedoms.we believe as americans that nobody has any right to invade our homes and molest or terrorize its occupants,destroy our property.so whether you are a swat doing his or her job or a homeowner just minding their own business..none of you would would savor this happening in your homes be it a leo home or some truckdriver.but it does and all too frequently in this day an age.it needs to stop.

feedthehogs
September 21, 2003, 07:46 AM
GSMD Fan,

Parading para-military men-in-black police gangs are meant as a scare and intimidation tactic toward its citizens. Nothing else plain and simple.

If they break down someones door and only one or two get shot before the homeowner gets killed then it is a win situation in my book.

Some of us don't scare that easily and consider defending our homes with our lives as a non issue.

Let the men in black think about that for a second right before they kick down the next door.

JohnBT
September 21, 2003, 10:16 AM
"My only reponse is that you guys better just get the right address."

Amen to that. You'd think it would be easy, but I guess not.

I'm glad the following tale took place before the police got overly aggressive.(My opinion and my father's and he was State Trooper way back when, so I'm not anti-police by any stretch of the imagination.)

Twenty years ago or so I opened the front door one night well after 9 to find 2 uniformed officers with an arrest warrant. Stepping out on the porch and closing the door behind me(good advice Dad) I asked how I could help them. They wanted to see Mr. So-and-so. "Never heard of him. I'm the homeowner and live here alone." They wanted to see some ID. "Uh, no thanks. I'll pass. Anything else I can help you with?"
They wanted to go inside and look around. "Uh, no." They insisted. I wasn't about to let them in, but stalled with "Show me the warrant first."

Well, do tell. It was obvious what the problem was.

I live at XXX N. XX St. The warrant was for XXX S. XX St.

After I patiently explained to them that the house numbers NORTH of Main St. are NORTH and the numbers SOUTH of Main St. are SOUTH, they still wanted to go in and look for Mr. Whatshisname. "Uh, no. Good night."

Having been raised right and being a generally helpful soul, I continued smiling and calmly pointed out to them that the XXX S. XX St. was a FREAKING CITY SOFTBALL FIELD next to the tennis courts in the big city park named for a former governor. There aren't any buildings at all on that side of the street south of the Expressway. Sheesh.

I stifled the urge to offer to buy them a map. Or maybe one of those butterfly nets for them to use to try to catch a clue.

John

TallPine
September 21, 2003, 10:32 AM
standingbear: we also believe in periods and carraige returns :D

Justin
September 21, 2003, 11:50 AM
Stick a fork in this one!

It's done!

If you enjoyed reading about "Raiding Wrong Home Parting Comment" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!