There is a problem with a lot of folks here not looking at things objectively and rationally. Some are outright cop bashers, which is usually attributed to one of the following scenarios: 1. A cop took their wife, 2. A cop busted them doing something wrong, 3. They desperately want to be a cop and have authority, but cannot make the cut, or 4. They were once a cop who washed out and was fired. Now they hold a grudge.
You know I can't believe I just read that, let me check.......yep, I just read that.
Let me just attack this post. What do we have behind door #1
1.
How many wives have you stole Coyote? I still have mine so it can't be that.
2.
Now thats gonna be different for every one. But still no cigar.
3.
Nope again, no way would I give my cushy construction career to bust down doors in the middle of the night.
The question here is; do you get off on authority?
4.
Wrong again.
But............... could it be #5.
5. Have personally witnessed an out of control tantrum on the part of a power trippin' Police Man. Yep could be that one.
Or #6
6. Subject can read and understand the news, even if it's somewhat blurred by bad reporting. Oh yeah, another possibility
Could it be good ol' #7.
7. Have seen right here on the High Road where Police Officers have typed
Yeah, its a good idea he didn't, he'd have had a real bad day.
because they are the only ones professional enough.....
and last of all #8.
8.
I don't expect you to know this or understand why, but some of the best info a LEO will ever get is from some pretty shady folks.
And doing actual police work, you know investigating and stuff is just boring compared to getting all dressed up like a mall ninja and bustin' down doors.
coyote;
What I find interesting is that the same folks who promote shooting first and asking questions later, who believe a guest at a motel who shoots the maid who entered his room by mistake should be exonerated, and who believes that you should not be held liable for shooting the 15 year old neighbor kid who got drunk and accidently(sic.) tried to get into your house thinking it was his own, want heads to roll when any governmental agency, person of authority, or someone with more power or status than them, does something similar.
In all of the above scenarios you listed the shooter had a right to be where they were and the shootee didn't. The shooter had fear for their life and acted on that fear, you know, like the laws in most states allow.
In the case described in the OP and in the Kathleen Johnson case and the Ryan Frederick case and many others, the instrument granting the "right" of the police to be there was flawed or fraudulent or obtained using unverified info garnered from the above mentioned "shady folks" . Thereby not really right.
On another thread about a similar case one of the officers on this board has said
" If you're so afraid the BG's are gonna flush the mother lode of drugs you're looking for down the toilet, why not just have the water department shut off the valve before you serve the warrant? If you've got the scene properly secured before you knock on the door, none of the evidence is gonna get away.
and
If the person you're looking for is so dangerous that you feel the need for a no-knock, better make sure they're in there first. I am personally uncomfortable with the concept of a no-knock raid, even though I have participated in them in the past.
It makes me wonder about the mindset of someone supposedly hired to uphold the law of the land saying
"I have been involved in a raid where the wrong house was hit. Fortunately the person inside was cooperative because we weren't there to play games.
and
Does that make it my fault that the wrong house was hit? Hardly.