CCW Holder Killed In Warrant Raid

[jefnvk]

If this guy was guilty of no crime except defending his house with a gun (against an armed raid at 6am!) then someone should be charged with murder. Will you at least admit that?

Nope. Unless you can prove they went in there with the intent of killing the guy.

How about we look at it this way. You are the officer serving the warrant on a house where you know there are weapons. A guy comes around the corner with a gun in his hand. Do you wait for him to start shooting.

Judging from the responses of tactical scenarios of people on this board, my guess would be the same thing the police did. I always hear things like 'better judged than carried' and 'your first priority is your own life'

 

[Molon Labe]

Aren't cannibis and drug paraphenalia evidence that illegal activity was occuring on the property?

Illegal?

Perhaps.

But not unlawful.

I am very tempted to describe how things would have turned out differently had I been raided instead of Mr. Diotaiuto. But I'm confident my posting privileges would be quickly revoked...

 

[roo_ster]

This Case
Not enough information to make a confident "good shoot" vs "jack boot" call.

Two things do give me cause for worry though. One, the whole bit about them deciding to pull out the paramilitary LEO unit because the suspect was a valid CHL holder. Also, there has been no claim to have found drugs. That leads me to believe that there were none. Perhaps they relied on one confidential informant's word? Don't know. We will have to wait & see.

Reaction to Threat
I answer the door armed. How apparently armed depends on the circumstances. Saturday at 10AM, you would not know I was armed. At O'Dark:30, you can bet your azz that I'm more likely to have my 1911 ready & visible.

Also, in the face of a credible potential threat, I can not hole up like Art. I have a kiddo in the house and absolutely must interpose myself between the threat & my boy. That means going to where I think the threat is as expetitiously as possible or running like a scalded-azz ape to his room & snatching him back to the master BR, depending on the circumstances. Either way, I am likely to move past a window with a firearm. So, those SWAT guys who are watching for armed guys through the windows now have their excuse to bust the door & shoot my happy self. Good thing I'm insured.

LEO Time vs Citizens' Lives
If the LEOs have to do more legwork to ensure that the the guy they are to raid really is a threat, so be it. The word of one criminal really ought not be sufficient to raid a man's house. It might be probable cause according to the magistrate, but I have less faith in criminal honesty. If they have to be creative and take more time to minimize the liklihood that somebody is going to get shot, so be it. Since I (along with other taxpayers) pay the costs, I think minimizing the deaths of citizens during raids to be worth spending the extra dollars.

WoSD vs Citizens' Lives
There is no drug worth killing a man over*. That includes efforts to eradicate the use of the drug and sale of the drug.

I get especially cranky when folks who are not involved in either end of the mess (drug sales/use or drug prohibition) get caught up in the machinations of the drug-law-enforcement industry. I am less cranky when users/seller/enforcers get harmed. They made the choice to jump into that snake pit.

* The statement covers the WoSD. I'm sure someone can fabricate some outlandish circumstancewhere a life-saving drug was being witheld from a person or persons such that it would morally justify killing for a drug.

 

[ksnecktieman]

I think I agree with DMF, when the police came to his house in the wee hours of the morning, and he met them half asleep, with a pistol in his hand they may have had no choice but to shoot him. (I answer the door with a pistol in my hand unless I am expecting someone.)

BUT, why did they not arrest him at one of his jobs, where he was more than likely required to be unarmed? This was an error in strategy, not one of tactics.

 

[Jeff White]

ksnecktieman said;

BUT, why did they not arrest him at one of his jobs, where he was more than likely required to be unarmed? This was an error in strategy, not one of tactics.

They were serving a search warrant not an arrest warrant. The information they had said the drugs, money and book keeping records were at his home, not at his place of employment. If he had complied and allowed the search and nothing was found, he wouldn't have been arrested.

Jeff

 

[Cacique500]

We're not discussing criminality here. We're discussing officer safety.

I understand the whole 'officer safety' thing...but everytime I hear that it reminds me of the whole 'it's for the children' thing. I am by no means minimizing what you guys put on the line each and every day, but you did sign up for it. The guy walking downstairs at 6 a.m. in his jammies getting popped in the head didn't. What about *his* safety?

and that there might be violence because Diotaiuto had a valid concealed weapons permit

My issue with this whole thing is that these guys decided to go in with a SWAT team because the guy had a CCW permit. I understand every CCW holder isn't a saint, but I think the statistics prove that the vast majority are.

 

[carebear]

If it isn't an arrest warrant then how dangerous was he really suspected of being? They could go to his work and contact him and run the search during the day.

They had the warrant on the house. Just go to his job and ask him to come with. If he doesn't, then search against his wishes (revising the warrant as appropriate). If you have a warrant to search the home against his will and must do it when he's home, why do it at a time when it is very reasonable and more likely for someone to resist an invasion in a case of mistaken identity? Especially someone who has taken the time to get a CHL and thus is predictably more likely to respond like those of us on this board? Someone on the police side should have thought it through before launching a pre-dawn assault on a defensive minded person.

If he's a violent felon hit him hard. But if you're just looking for drugs, and the only real justification for more force is a lawful CCW permit, just ask him to comply with the search warrant at a decent hour.

If I recall correctly, someone noted most searches are allowed non-violently when someone bothers to ask first, warrant or not. Car or home.

Y'all are using the freaking hammer without looking at the size of the bug.

 

[TheEgg]

carebear --

+1

 

[Jeff White]

Cacique500 said;

The guy walking downstairs at 6 a.m. in his jammies getting popped in the head didn't. What about *his* safety?

Where did it say that he was popped in the head in his jammies? I must have missed that. I have seen nothing in any of the news articles that said what he did that caused the officers to shoot.

SWAT teams aren't execution squads. The vast majority of police tactical operations end with no shots being fired. Often the suspect even shoots at the police or shoots the police and is still taken alive.

My issue with this whole thing is that these guys decided to go in with a SWAT team because the guy had a CCW permit. I understand every CCW holder isn't a saint, but I think the statistics prove that the vast majority are.

Are you willing to bet your life on those statistics? Do you have any idea as to what goes in to getting a search warrant. The police had enough information to believe that Diotaiuto was involved in criminal activity that they convinced a judge that it was not a violation of his rights to enter Diotaiuto's home and search for evidence of that activity. So wouldn't it be reasonable to believe that he wasn't one of the vast majority of CCW holders who are upstanding citizens?

You guys are doing exactly what you always accuse the cops here of doing. You are closing ranks to protect a brother CCW holder. Because the state of Florida issued this guy a CCW he's automatically a good guy and the facts don't matter. Do we have, brotherhood of the CCW badge here at THR?

carebear asked;

If it isn't an arrest warrant then how dangerous was he really suspected of being? They could go to his work and contact him and run the search during the day.

Oh yes, that will work well, just call the guy up and say; "Hey old man, we've received some information that you are a drug dealer and that all the evidence we need to put you away is at your house. What would be a good time for us to pop over and check it out old boy? Hate to inconvenience you but you know we have to do our jobs. If you can't make the appointment, make sure you call the office in plenty of time so we don't waste any gas driving over."

Yeah, that'll work....

If you have a warrant to search the home against his will and must do it when he's home, why do it at a time when it is very reasonable and more likely for someone to resist an invasion in a case of mistaken identity?

These things can be very time sensitive. If you don't get the warrant and the rad organized in time, the dealer may have already sold the drugs or moved the cash. Most of them don't keep their stash in the safe and go fondle it from time to time like many of us do with our gun collection. They get the stuff in, then move it as quickly as possible so that they don't get caught with it.

Warrants are often served in the early morning hours because people are moving slowly and generally less alert and capable of resistance. This may vary with the sleep habits of the suspect. I've served warrants at 10 PM because that's when the suspect was likely to be asleep.

Especially someone who has taken the time to get a CHL and thus is predictably more likely to respond like those of us on this board? Someone on the police side should have thought it through before launching a pre-dawn assault on a defensive minded person.

Well the various news articles place the time of the raid at 6 am, 6:15 am and 6:45 am. That's hardly pre-dawn. Statistics also show that most people who get a CCW don't carry very often. We've talked about that issue here in other threads.

I hate to tell you this, but many people who are involved in the drug trade are more defensive minded then most of the members here at THR. Reinforced doors, dogs, booby traps, armed people standing watch, etc. You take the intelligence you have and plan the operation so that it has the greatest chance of success with no casualties on either side. It's been proven time and again that overwhelming force accomplishes this.

Ah, the brotherhood of the CCW badge...Would we even be having this discussion if the suspect didn't have a CCW?

Jeff

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

Well Hawkeye, in this thread you said:
". . . the cop should breath a sigh of relief when he sees that this guy has a CCW license, because, unlike the general public, he knows for a fact that this guy is very likely an upstanding non-criminal type who respects the law."

Which ignores that while most CCW holders are law abiding citizens, in this case it was determined by a magistrate that there was probably evidence of a crime in Diotaiuto's residence, and if in fact it was there then Diotaiuto probably put it there, and therefore Diotaiuto probably was NOT "an non-criminal type who respects the law."

Your line of logic on this thread is the cops should ignore the probabilities related to the specific facts of a case, in favor of the probabilities about the general population. Under that same twisted logic one could say most parents are not child molestors, or most homeowners are not murders, and are very likely "upstanding non-criminal types who resect the law," so we should just ignore the probabilities about a particular suspect, and base all actions on the probabilities of some larger demographic. That logic is beyond stupid, but it's what you're pushing with the statements about "cops breathing a sigh of relief" merely because someone has a CCW.

Well, DMF, after reading the first half of your post, I was about to respond that you made a fair point, as far as it goes, but then you had to get nasty about it. What a shame. Well, nasty or not, I will admit that you have a certain point as it relates to this specific circumstance, i.e., that it is reasonable for a cop to be more expectant of violent resistance if a judge has determined that the subject in question is more likely than not a criminal of some type. That would trump the CCW license as an indicator of the odds, but in general terms (such as a traffic stop) I think my point still holds up.

That said, there is still something wrong with this tactic of knocking and smashing residential doors in during the early morning hours (or any time). It seems calculated to get someone killed. The person whose house you are breaking into with gun drawn is presumed innocent of any crime, regardless of probable cause. You have to design your tactics with that in mind. Your mission is not search and destroy.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

And yet we use the same technique the US Marshall's service uses for high-risk warrant service against known violent armed convicted felons, escapees and repeat offenders?

The reason they use the SWAT team is that they have one, and want to justify the cost of maintaining one, so they will tend to stretch the mission of the SWAT team to get it used more often. Also, these guys are super enthusiastic about their job. It's a rush for them, and they WANT to be used in the worst way. That cannot help but get them more opportunities than they really should have to apply their skills.

 

[carebear]

Jeff,

Would we even be having this discussion if the suspect didn't have a CCW?

From me? Even a year ago, maybe not. My distaste for this kind of thing keeps getting exponentially greater, and I'm still a law-and-order, police are good and necessary kind of guy.

When I talked about contacting him at work I meant with a few uniforms and a detective at the same time the house is being cordoned off or at least monitored. He can't do diddly about hiding anything at that moment and he's outnumbered and has any major potential weapons by definition out of reach. Again, not a violent felon, just a guy with possession and maybe distribution; the odds are he doesn't have an AK in his desk.

If he doesn't want to ride along to witness the search and wants to make a call and you are afraid of a tipoff or something, you've got a valid warrant, have the on-site, badged and uniformed with squad cars team serve it without him there. That would make it, oh, ZERO risk of anyone getting shot resisting what the homeowner can and probably should reasonably believe to be a criminal home invasion at 6-ish in the morning.

This sort of thing may in fact take more planning, it might take more time and manpower (though I can't see how, having planned and executed squad-sized raids myself) but it definitely decreases the risk to all involved.

Save SWAT for the outlaw bikers and gang-bangers with proven or reasonably suspected actual violent armed felonies to their name.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

Nope. Unless you can prove they went in there with the intent of killing the guy.

As a cop, you should know that intent is not required for murder. Recklessness is sufficient, i.e., conduct which a reasonable person would calculate to be likely to result in someone's death or serious bodily injury. I think this situation qualifies.

It used to be called "depraved heart murder" when recklessness substitutes for intent. Don't know if that term is still used to describe it, except perhaps on the Multi State section of the Bar Exam, but it is still murder under the law.

 

[Cacique500]

You guys are doing exactly what you always accuse the cops here of doing. You are closing ranks to protect a brother CCW holder. Because the state of Florida issued this guy a CCW he's automatically a good guy and the facts don't matter. Do we have, brotherhood of the CCW badge here at THR?

Jeff, I understand what you're trying to say...but just for one second step out of your LEO mentality and try to look at this from a 'civilian' perspective.

My point is that just because he had a CCW the police found it justified to call in the SWAT team because they *expected* violence from a CCW holder. In my book, that line of logic is DEAD WRONG.

As others have said, 99.51% of us would have responded in the SAME WAY (armed) if our home was being 'broken into' at O-dark-30. What bothers most of us I think is that anyone of us could be in this guys cold dead shoes and the newspaper report would read the same...that's scary.

Would we even be having this discussion if the suspect didn't have a CCW?

Probably not. But he did have one, and the powers that be decided that his CCW permit made him enough of a risk to justify a SWAT team.

 

[TallPine]

If you don't like the drug laws, then the way to get them changed is to elect representatives who will repeal them.

With all due respect, that's not exactly true - at least not the first step.

The first step is to convince enough people that the WOD is a travesty and and an outrage, so that they will vote to elect representatives who will repeal them.

And if the incident in question (as it appears) is not more than enough reason to stop the WOD, then I don't know what would be (but apparently it is not for many people )

The fact that the victim had a CCW permit means nothing either way to me, except that it appears that the police might have been more "trigger happy" because of that information.

Now, maybe the guy is(was) a total jerk and attempted to shoot LEOs after clearly identifying them as such - that would make this incident a lot different.

But ... when a raid is executed at a specific time of day when the raidee is expected to be sleepy and confused, but at the same time expect him/her/them to be able to clearly distinguish LEOs from BGs in a split second, then I think something is terribly wrong :banghead:

For your (LEOs) sake and mine, I sincerely hope this sort of thing never happens at my home. I don't do dope, or anything else that I am aware of that would warrant (pun alert!) such a raid, so I would have to assume that anyone breaking down my door is a boogeyman. That and I am armed 100% of the time at home, not just at 6am or 10pm.

 

[beerslurpy]

Nope. Unless you can prove they went in there with the intent of killing the guy.

I beleive the LEOs conducting the raid in the early AM (a time they chose) put him in a situation in which he would likely employ armed self defense. They knew this would be his reaction because they knew he was a CCW license holder. They then intentionally added SWAT to ensure that his armed self defense resulted in his death.

That sounds like intentional action that would knowingly result in his death to me. Which is murder.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Real Hawkeye, you are a funny person. Had I known that you represented several officers in some online local, I might have phrased my wording differently, but I will still address you as an individual to your comments. By your comments, you are obviously not a cop, have not been present for service of warrants where the cops only knocked softly before breaking in a door, and apparently don't have direct knowledge of cops making it rougher on CCW permit holders which you claim has become standard.

Since you apparently are concerned with attention to detail, then I would like to point out that your summarization of my comments of a CCW making it impossible that the person might be a homicidal maniac, then let me point out that I never said anything absolute. I simply explained how it was possible that a person with a CCW permit could still turn out to be a bad guy. I find it extremely naive when people start vouching for a person online simply because that person has X credentials when the people doing the vouching don't actually know the person and don't have firsthand knowledge of the incident in question, like you and your very incorrect summaries of hw police deal with CCW permit holders.

You said you were basing your comments on the odds. Fair enough. I was too. My comments concern those on the bad tail end of the curve and how to explain that tail. If a person falls outside the odds, then how do you explain it? Odds are not just about recognizing what happens most commonly, but also about explaining why events happen outside of the normal curve, if it is a normal curve, or rather, what happens outside of the various potential norms (as in bi or trimodal curves).

I appreciate your comment that I might not be that bright to which I would suggest that you apparently need a monocle for that one hawkeye of yours as the sharpness of your vision has apparently been lost. I think I will call you Natty Bumppo. It seems to fit better.

 

[Deavis]

Rival drug dealers may run down down to the local police supply house and buy raid jackets or POLICE marked T-shirts in order to make ripping off their rival a bit easier, but I don't know of any instances where they've disguised themselves as a SWAT team with level IV armor, kevlar helmets and other turn out gear. Diotaiuto was more likely to recognize a SWAT officer in his turn out kit as a legitimate police officer then a scruffy looking narcotics detective wearing a raid jacket over his street clothes

Jeff did the SWAT officers gave him enough time to recognize their outfits and drop his weapon before they opened fire? Of course they didn't. Many of you who favor the LEO side are saying that the police have to make an instant decision to open fire on Diotaito for their saftey, yet the suspect doesn't have more than that instant to recognize what he is looking at, understand that they are indeed police, drop his weapon, and surrender. Pulling a trigger on sight of a weapon or what is suspected to be a weapon (as pointed out above) is a much faster process than properly identifying a police officer wearing "tactical", read black gear, in what is most likely, a darkened room when the identifier is in a groggy state of mind. That is, of course, part of the purpose of an early morning raid, isn't it?

I realize that someone went through all the dangers of alternative methods of arresting him. However, as DMF pointed out, they had a search warrant, not an arrest warrant. Why not wait until he leaves to go to work, serve the search warrant in a house that is now devoid of a known armed subject (there could be others, but we have lessened the odds and if the house was under survelliance, they probably know with a degree of certainty who else is in there), and have a couple marked cars blockade him over on the side of the road if he needs to be arrested as well? The presumtion seems to be that LEOs can plan an elaborate breach but can't figure out how to use 4 or five marked cars with lights to blockade a single car on a road? A road that the police can have complete control over and control traffic on minutes before the suspect reaches the "ambush" point...

At least if you blockade him with marked cars, he will instantly know he is being stopped by police and has a chance to prove that his intentions are not to hurt the officers. Is it not an ideal soultion, of course not, but it does offer the suspect a chance to identify the officers and the officers have a relative degree of saftey by virtue of being inside a cage that protect them and limits the suspects ability to employ some of his weapons. It is much harder to manuever a car in a curbed street than it is a gun inside a familiar house.

There is no doubt that the entry method used is an asset to the police because it gives them many advantages over people who would want to harm them. However, it poses a very real risk to everyday people who believe that their castle is their home and choose defense over submission just in case that knocking at the door isn't benign. I certaintly don't want to be caught with a shotgun in my hands when the door comes down in front of the police but I certainly don't want to be caught without one if the door comes down in front of a home invader. Both sides are in a difficult position and unwilling to look at alternatives for whatever reason.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

Ouch! Double Naught, that smarts. Give a guy a break. I didn't say you weren't too bright. I gave two options. That was just one.

 

[DMF]

As I said, it's not relevant to whether the search was justified or not, but at least it should put to rest some of the BS ranting about whether or not drugs were found:

There was violence. And, according to a copy of the search warrant reviewed by the South Florida Sun-Sentinel, police did find drugs. . .

. . . An inventory of items seized from the home listed "cannabis" and "drug paraphernalia," as well as . . .

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/lo...7aug07,0,2537784.story?coll=sfla-news-broward

 

[BostonGeorge]

So he lost his life over some pot, that makes me feel alot better

 

[DMF]

So he lost his life over some pot, that makes me feel alot better

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: One more time, he did NOT lose his life over any drugs. He lost his life because he presented a threat of serious bodily injury or death, and lethal force was used to stop the threat.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

One more time, he did NOT lose his life over any drugs. He lost his life because he presented a threat of serious bodily injury or death, and lethal force was used to stop the threat.

DMF, take your blinders off, man. The SWAT team was sent in knowing this guy was a security conscious person who would almost certainly respond with a weapon in his hand, as you or I would under similar circumstances. This was a set up for his almost certain execution, and over what? Some pot. Dude ... not cool!

 

[BostonGeorge]

One more time, he did NOT lose his life over any drugs. He lost his life because he presented a threat of serious bodily injury or death, and lethal force was used to stop the threat.

And that's a fact? It seems if he had shot first the same argument could be used in his defense. Basically the point I was trying to make was that his death was a direct result of the WoSD, therefore, he died over a little plant matter.

 

[Derek Zeanah]

I guess my issue is this:

I understand that procedure was probably followed in the execution of a warrant that was sworn out because the magistrate had been shown probable cause that the law was being broken by this guy at his residence. In execution of the warrant, a member of the entry team identified him as a threat and acted to eliminate the threat to the entry team members.

All that's been made really, really clear.

When all is said and done though, this guy shouldn't have died over this. Saying "he had possession of prohibited substances" isn't going to smoothe this one over, either, because this could have gone down the same way even if our CCW holder was completely clean.

Cops can get a warrant based on a "confidential informant," choose to go in at a time that greatly increases the odds that there'll be a lethal confrontation, and wash their hands of it once the homeowner is dead. "We followed all the rules -- not our fault. We had reason to believe something illegal was going on, and he would be alive today if he hadn't presented a threat to the entry team..."

This was preventable.

It wasn't prevented.

Having cops I respect parrot the "this is procedure -- this is how the world works" line makes me very, very sad.

I didn't think that I'd have to make the argument that no-one should have died here.

This thing was mismanaged. If procedures are set up such that this is likely, or even happens occasionally, then they need to be revisited. If the dude who was in charge of this isn't even disciplined over it, then justice isn't being done.

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

Here's a selfish reason to dislike this trend: I'm a CCW holder, though I rarely carry. I do, however, always arm myself when something around the house doesn't seem right.

My wife is a doctor. One of her competitors in town is known to abuse every system he can in order to get advantage/take out grudges/etc. Old boy could accuse my wife of illegally prescribing schedule II drugs in order to get more business, and this could be me.

Not likely, but the fact that it's possible is distressing.

I should also note that these sorts of cases are the reason I have a carbine next to the bed, in addition to the requisite sidearm. If a mistake's gonna be made, I want to be on the side that gets to fret over resolving the issue in court, thanks, even if I blow my eardrums out in the process.