Blackfork
Member
From www.theagitator.com
Another One
The hits keep on comin':
Mary Silva, a 68-year-old retiree, said deputies got the wrong house when they burst into her Winton Way apartment at 6:30 a.m. on the day of the raids.
Silva said she was sleeping when she heard loud banging at her front door and a voice calling "Open up!"
Before she could answer, Silva said, deputies broke through her front door and threw a smoke bomb onto her carpet. As Silva stood in her nightgown, about 10 officers surrounded her with weapons drawn, she said.
They shouted, "Where is he? Where is he?"
Silva told deputies she lives alone. She said they responded, "Shut up! Don't move!"
The team was looking for 24-year-old Reginaldo Ramirez, who lives next door to Silva.
But the search warrant deputies gave Silva lists an entirely different address -- not Silva's house or the house next door. Silva said deputies gave her the search warrant several hours after the initial raid.
Pazin said deputies may have transposed numbers in the address on the warrant, but that law enforcement acted in good faith when they entered Silva's house.
Ramirez, who is the half-brother of Silva's grandson, listed Silva's address as his own when he was arrested Nov. 17, Pazin said.
Pazin said Ramirez could have listed Silva's address as his own during previous run-ins with the law and that the address could have been listed in law enforcement records in connection with Ramirez.
Silva said Ramirez has never lived at or visited her house.
If deputies made a mistake when they served the search warrant, Pazin said, the sheriff's department will pay to repair the damage to Silva's apartment, which includes a burn mark on the carpet and a fist-sized hole in the wall next to the front door.
Imagine if Ms. Silva had a gun, and was prepared to use it. Well, you can imagine exactly what would happen. Police would shirk responsibility for conducting a poorly investigated, poorly executed raid. How do I know? Because that's precisely what they did this time.
"Let's point the finger where the blame really belongs, at the individual who's using (Silva's) residence to conceal where he's really living," Pazin said. "It's unfortunate (Ramirez) was using some type of elderly relative to hide his true residence."No. That's what criminals do. They're nasty people. Police, on the other hand, are accountable to us. The least we can demand of them is that they do the necessary legwork before barging into our homes. Parzin's men failed the people they serve in that regard. They took the word of a criminal. They did no corroborating investigation to see that the address he listed was indeed where he lived, or to see if other, innocent people may live there. Not only that, but they then transposed the numbers on the search warrant. They erred. Big time. They ought to cop to it. That is precisely where the "finger of blame" ought to be pointed.
Silva said since the raid she can't stop shaking and is plagued by dreams about people knocking on her front door.
"I've never seen such nasty people in all my life," she said. "You don't talk to an old lady like that. At least show some respect."
May seem strange to her, but given what happened in Atlanta this week, she's ought to consider herself lucky.
Radley Balko | permalink | (0) track it | (0)
Context for Kathryn Johnston
When people like Kathryn Johnston or Cory Maye understandably mistake raiding police officers for criminal intruders, police and prosecutors are rather unforgiving, particularly if the warrant was "legal." People like Maye and Johnston are supposed to show remarkable poise and judgment, despite the fact that armed men are breaking into their homes..
When police make mistakes, however, they're nearly always forgiven. Because we're supposed to understand how an officer in such a volatile situation might misjudge an everyday object for a gun, or shoot a completely innocent, unarmed man -- all perfectly understandable, given the volatile, confrontational circumstances surrounding SWAT raids. Such deaths -- while tragic -- are mere collateral damage. We have to keep fighting the war on drugs. And we have to protect our police officers by allowing them to break down doors while people are sleeping. The deaths of a few innocent people are the price we pay for the privilege of having the government tell us what we are and aren't allowed to put into our bodies.
It's an abhorrent double standard. Below, I've listed some cases that illustrate it. The cases below tend to be below-the-radar cases. The list doesn't include higher-profile deaths like those of Clayton Helriggle, Mario Paz, Alberto Sepulveda, or Donald Scott, among others, because most people who've been reading this site for a while already know about them (if you're interested, I'd encourage you to Google those names).
Here, a brief list of cases to put the Ms. Johnston's death into its proper context. Let's start in Georgia:
# Xavier Bennett: In 1991, police in Dekalb County conduct a 2:30am no-knock raid on the home of Bobby Bowman, a man they suspect of possessing cocaine. They were right. He did, though only enough to identify him as a user, not a dealer. What they didn't expect is that his 8-year-old stepson Xavier Bennett would be inside, too. When Bowman, who says he thought he was being invaded, met police with a gun, the boy was killed in the crossfire. No disciplinary actions were taken against the police.
So police conduct a dangerous no-knock on a home where a child's inside. The child dies. Police blame the father of the child for (1) possessing cocaine, and (2) not realizing the raiding party was police.
# Deputy John Whitehead. In 2006, police in Macon conduct a 1:30 am raid on a suspected drug house. Residents of the house say they were startled from sleep, believed they were being robbed, and shot to defend themselves. In the process, the shoot and kill Dep. Whitehead. Once the resident realize they're being raided by police and not gang members, they surrender immediately. Prosecutors charge all five residents with murder, including two who had nothing to do with the shooting, one who wasn't even home at the time of the raid. Two face the death penalty. The sheriff later says of the raid, "It just went wrong."
So if you mistake midnight-raiding police for intruders and there are drugs in your home, your mistake means the death penalty. If your roommates possess drugs and mistake raiding police for intruders and shoot and kill an officer, you're looking at a murder charge.
Source: Phillip Ramati and Joe Kovac Jr., "'It just went wrong,' sheriff says of slaying," Macon Telegraph, April 5, 2006.
Cheryl Lynn Noel. In January 2005, police in Baltimore conduct an early-morning, no-knock raid on the the Noel home after finding marijuana seeds and traces of cocaine in the family trash. Noel, who's step-daughter had been murdered years earlier, retrieves a legally registered handgun when she hears the sound of home invaders rushing up her steps. A SWAT officer kicks open her door, and Noel, in her nightgown, is clutching the gun, not pointed, when he enters. The SWAT officer, wearing a bulletproof vest and helmet, and carrying a bulletproof ballistics shield, hits Noel twice from the doorway, then shoots her a third time from point-blank range. She dies.
Noel had no criminal record (her husband did, but his offense took place 35 years ago). She conducted Bible-study classes on her lunch breaks. Twenty months after the raid, and probably not coincidentally just weeks after the Noel family filed a civil rights suit, the Baltimore County Police Department awarded the officer who shot and killed Noel a medal for "bravery, courage, and valor" in shooting her.
So if you're a woman whose daughter has been murdered, and you mistake raiding police for criminal intruders, your punishment is death, and the officer who shoots you not only isn't disciplined, he's given an award.
Sources: Joseph M. Giordano, "Woman is shot, killed by police in drug raid," Dundalk Eagle, January 27, 2005; Joseph M. Giordano, "Petition reflects anguish," Dundalk Eagle, March 31, 2005; my own reporting.
# Tony Martinez. On December 20, 2001, police in Travis County, Texas storm a mobile home on a no-knock drug warrant. Nineteen-year-old Tony Martinez, nephew of the man named in the warrant, is asleep on the couch at the time of the raid. Martinez was never suspected of any crime. When Martinez rises from the couch as police break into the home, deputy Derek Hill shoots Martinez in the chest, killing him. Martinez is unarmed.
A grand jury later declines to indict Hill in the shooting, and he continues his employment wit the police department. The same Travis County paramilitary unit would later erroneously raid a woman's home after mistaking ragweed for marijuana plants.
So if police conduct a no-knock raid and mistakenly kill a completely innocent, unarmed person, it's no one's fault, because these raids are naturally dangerous and volatile, and it's easy to see how mistaken identity might happen.
Sources: Clair Osborn, "Survivors sue Travis county over fatal raid," Austin American-Statesman, May 10, 2003, p. B1; Claire Osborn, "Deputy not indicted in drug raid death," Austin American-Statesman, April 4, 2002.
# Edwin Delamora. On February 15, 2001, the same task force that would later mistakenly shoot and kill Tony Martinez raids the Del Valle, Texas mobile home of Edwin Delamora, who lives with his wife and two children. As two deputies beat down his door with a battering ram, Delamora fires through the door, fearing he is under attack. His wife is on the phone with 911 at the time he fires. One bullet from his gun strikes and kills sheriff's deputy Keith Ruiz.
Delamora had no previous criminal record, and his defense says the raid on his home was influenced by an anonymous informant who turned out to be the brother of two sheriff's deputies. Information about the informant's relationship with the police was suppressed at trial.
Delamora was eventually convicted of capital murder, and sentenced to life in prison. Police found less than an ounce of methamphetamine and one ounce of marijuana in his home. Prosecutors declined to seek the death penalty because of substantial doubt about whether or not Delamora knew the people outside his door were police. That decision sparked heavy criticism from Texas Attorney General John Cornyn (now a U.S. Senator), who moved for a law requiring the death penalty to be an option in any capital murder case.
Time magazine would later report that people in the community were suspicious of the narcotics task force, describing the team's general attitude as "those task-force guys were Rambo wannabes."
So if men are attempting to break into your home, and you mistake them for criminal intruders -- bolstered by the fact that your wife calls 911 -- you get no deference for the volatility or confrontational nature of SWAT raids. Mistake a cop for an intruder when firing your gun, and you're going to jail for a long, long time. And God help you if there's some dope in your house, too. When a member of the same SWAT team later mistakes and unarmed, innocent man for a deadly threat, and consequently shoots and kills him, the police officer won't even be disciplined, much less sent to jail.
Sources: John Cloud, "Guarding Death's Door," Time, July 14, 2003; Jordan Smith, "Another Drug War Casualty," Austin Chronicle, July 19, 2002; "Delamora attorney says key facts were withheld," Austin American-Statesman, July 29, 2002, p. A1; "Cornyn: Death penalty must be option when officer killed," Associated Press, July 25, 2002.
# Meredith "Buddy" Sutherland. On October 4, 2002, police raid a home in Windsor, Pennsylvania on suspicion of drug activity. Once inside, police go from room to room in the dark home. Trooper Gregory Broaddus enters a bedroom where Meredith "Buddy" Sutherland, Jr. is sleeping. Sutherland doesn't live in the house, but is visiting a friend. Officer Broaddus mistakenly believes Sutherland to be clutching a weapon when he enters the room, and fires, striking Sutherland. Sutherland has no weapon, and would never be charged with a crime. He spent 11 days in a coma, and nearly three weeks in the hospital.
Other occupants of the home were eventually charged with drug crimes. Sutherland sued in June 2004 for redress for his injuries. The state attorney general in turn asked that the suit be dismissed, arguing that the officer in question had qualified immunity, and that, incredulously, Sutherland himself was responsible for his own injuries.
So if you are an innocent person visiting a friend whose roommates are involved in drug activity, if a police officer mistakes something you're holding as you're lying in your bed for a gun, it's your fault for, I guess, lying there so guilty-looking, and your punishment is eleven days in a coma.
Sources: Elizabeth Evans, "Man sues over drug-raid injury; SWAT-type team hit Windsor home," York Dispatch, June 9, 2004. Elizabeth Evans, "Shooting victim home; Family of man wounded in raid considers lawsuit," York Dispatch, October 23, 2002.
# James Hoskins. In February 2004, Middletown, Pennsylvania police storm the home of James Hoskins on a drug warrant. They are looking for Hoskins' brother Jim, whom they eventually arrest for possessing "a small amount of marijuana, a glass pipe, and about $622," according to the Philadelphia Inquirer.
From his bed, Hoskins hears the loud thud of police breaking into his home. Naked and unarmed, he gets up to investigate. As he approaches the door, a Middletown detective pushes his way into Hoskins' bedroom. Hoskins and his girlfriend say the detective never identified himself. The detective fires, and later explains that he mistook the t-shirt Hoskins was using to cover his genitals for a gun. The bullet enters Hoskins' abdomen, and rips through his stomach, small intestine, and colon. It eventually lodges in his leg, which must later be amputated.
It isn't until weeks later, after he emerges from a coma, that Hoskins learns the man who shot him is a police officer, and not a criminal intruder. Remarkably, the Middletown Township police department saw no need to conduct an internal investigation of the shooting until prodded by the district attorney. The officer who shot Hoskins would never be disciplined.
So if a police officer mistakes a t-shirt for a gun and shoots an innocent man, we should give him the benefit of the doubt, given the volatile and confrontational nature of SWAT raids.
Sources: Larry King, "Man shot in apartment by police hopes for justice," Philadelphia Inquirer, April 7, 2004; "Pennsylvania Police Fail To Investigate Shooting of Unarmed Man," Associated Press, September 3, 2004; Laurie Mason and Harry Yanoshak, "Cop cleared in shooting of unarmed man," Bucks County Courier Times, April 23, 2004; Larry King, "Middletown settles police shooting; A Bristol Twp. Man had sued after a Feb. raid targeting his brother left him without his left leg," Philadelphia Inquirer, January 16, 2005, p. B8.
There are more examples, of course. Far, far too many more. See here.
Radley Balko | permalink | (0) track it | (0)
More Thoughts on Johnston, Raids
Defenders of the police tactics used in this case take a rather open-and-shut, legalistic approach to all of this. That is, if the warrant was legal, the police had the right to be at the home. And if the police had the right to be at the home, Johnston -- or anyone else in a similar position -- has no right to defend their home from them.
Of course, the mere legality of the warrant might have little to do with whether or not the warrant was correct. For example, a drug dealer might conduct a couple transactions from the porch of your house while you aren't home. Not much you can do about that. Or -- here's a possibility -- if you could win the trust of a frail, 92-year-old woman, her house would make great cover for a small-time dope peddler, wouldn't it?
The apologists say that if the warrant is legal, and the police have the right to be there, you're pretty much screwed. If the police storm in and you -- not being a drug dealer and consequently having no reason to think the police might break into your home -- mistake them for criminal intruders and meet them with a gun, you are at fault. I guess your crime is living in an area where drug dealers could use your porch while you aren't home, or being a too trusting, frail, old woman. Sorry about your luck.
On the other hand, if the police break into your home and they mistake the blue cup, TV remote, the t-shirt you're holding to cover your genitals because they broke in while you were sleeping naked, or the glint off your wristwatch for a gun -- and subsequently shoot you (all of these scenarios have actually happened), well, then no one is to blame. Because, you see, SWAT raids are inherently dangerous and volatile, and it's perfectly understandable how police might mistake an innocent person holding a t-shirt for a violent drug dealer with gun.
Do you see the double standard, here? If the warrant is legit, they are allowed to make mistakes. You aren't.
This discrepancy grows all the more absurd when you consider that they have extensive training, you don't. They have also spent hours preparing for the raid. You were startled from your sleep, and have just seconds to make a life-or-death decision. To top it all off, many times they've just deployed a flashbang grenade that is designed to confuse and disorient you.
What's the solution? It isn't to encourage people to start shooting raiding cops to kill. That kind of talk is foolish, and needs to stop. But it isn't to encourage to people to refrain from defending their homes, either. Both of those suggestions will lead to more people dying -- both police and citizens.
The solution is actually pretty simple: Stop invading people's homes for nonviolent offenses.
Radley Balko | permalink | (0) track it | (0)
This is HEAVILY edited down due to posting constraints.
There is a big difference in LEO-bashing and letting the chips fall as they may.
Another One
The hits keep on comin':
Mary Silva, a 68-year-old retiree, said deputies got the wrong house when they burst into her Winton Way apartment at 6:30 a.m. on the day of the raids.
Silva said she was sleeping when she heard loud banging at her front door and a voice calling "Open up!"
Before she could answer, Silva said, deputies broke through her front door and threw a smoke bomb onto her carpet. As Silva stood in her nightgown, about 10 officers surrounded her with weapons drawn, she said.
They shouted, "Where is he? Where is he?"
Silva told deputies she lives alone. She said they responded, "Shut up! Don't move!"
The team was looking for 24-year-old Reginaldo Ramirez, who lives next door to Silva.
But the search warrant deputies gave Silva lists an entirely different address -- not Silva's house or the house next door. Silva said deputies gave her the search warrant several hours after the initial raid.
Pazin said deputies may have transposed numbers in the address on the warrant, but that law enforcement acted in good faith when they entered Silva's house.
Ramirez, who is the half-brother of Silva's grandson, listed Silva's address as his own when he was arrested Nov. 17, Pazin said.
Pazin said Ramirez could have listed Silva's address as his own during previous run-ins with the law and that the address could have been listed in law enforcement records in connection with Ramirez.
Silva said Ramirez has never lived at or visited her house.
If deputies made a mistake when they served the search warrant, Pazin said, the sheriff's department will pay to repair the damage to Silva's apartment, which includes a burn mark on the carpet and a fist-sized hole in the wall next to the front door.
Imagine if Ms. Silva had a gun, and was prepared to use it. Well, you can imagine exactly what would happen. Police would shirk responsibility for conducting a poorly investigated, poorly executed raid. How do I know? Because that's precisely what they did this time.
"Let's point the finger where the blame really belongs, at the individual who's using (Silva's) residence to conceal where he's really living," Pazin said. "It's unfortunate (Ramirez) was using some type of elderly relative to hide his true residence."No. That's what criminals do. They're nasty people. Police, on the other hand, are accountable to us. The least we can demand of them is that they do the necessary legwork before barging into our homes. Parzin's men failed the people they serve in that regard. They took the word of a criminal. They did no corroborating investigation to see that the address he listed was indeed where he lived, or to see if other, innocent people may live there. Not only that, but they then transposed the numbers on the search warrant. They erred. Big time. They ought to cop to it. That is precisely where the "finger of blame" ought to be pointed.
Silva said since the raid she can't stop shaking and is plagued by dreams about people knocking on her front door.
"I've never seen such nasty people in all my life," she said. "You don't talk to an old lady like that. At least show some respect."
May seem strange to her, but given what happened in Atlanta this week, she's ought to consider herself lucky.
Radley Balko | permalink | (0) track it | (0)
Context for Kathryn Johnston
When people like Kathryn Johnston or Cory Maye understandably mistake raiding police officers for criminal intruders, police and prosecutors are rather unforgiving, particularly if the warrant was "legal." People like Maye and Johnston are supposed to show remarkable poise and judgment, despite the fact that armed men are breaking into their homes..
When police make mistakes, however, they're nearly always forgiven. Because we're supposed to understand how an officer in such a volatile situation might misjudge an everyday object for a gun, or shoot a completely innocent, unarmed man -- all perfectly understandable, given the volatile, confrontational circumstances surrounding SWAT raids. Such deaths -- while tragic -- are mere collateral damage. We have to keep fighting the war on drugs. And we have to protect our police officers by allowing them to break down doors while people are sleeping. The deaths of a few innocent people are the price we pay for the privilege of having the government tell us what we are and aren't allowed to put into our bodies.
It's an abhorrent double standard. Below, I've listed some cases that illustrate it. The cases below tend to be below-the-radar cases. The list doesn't include higher-profile deaths like those of Clayton Helriggle, Mario Paz, Alberto Sepulveda, or Donald Scott, among others, because most people who've been reading this site for a while already know about them (if you're interested, I'd encourage you to Google those names).
Here, a brief list of cases to put the Ms. Johnston's death into its proper context. Let's start in Georgia:
# Xavier Bennett: In 1991, police in Dekalb County conduct a 2:30am no-knock raid on the home of Bobby Bowman, a man they suspect of possessing cocaine. They were right. He did, though only enough to identify him as a user, not a dealer. What they didn't expect is that his 8-year-old stepson Xavier Bennett would be inside, too. When Bowman, who says he thought he was being invaded, met police with a gun, the boy was killed in the crossfire. No disciplinary actions were taken against the police.
So police conduct a dangerous no-knock on a home where a child's inside. The child dies. Police blame the father of the child for (1) possessing cocaine, and (2) not realizing the raiding party was police.
# Deputy John Whitehead. In 2006, police in Macon conduct a 1:30 am raid on a suspected drug house. Residents of the house say they were startled from sleep, believed they were being robbed, and shot to defend themselves. In the process, the shoot and kill Dep. Whitehead. Once the resident realize they're being raided by police and not gang members, they surrender immediately. Prosecutors charge all five residents with murder, including two who had nothing to do with the shooting, one who wasn't even home at the time of the raid. Two face the death penalty. The sheriff later says of the raid, "It just went wrong."
So if you mistake midnight-raiding police for intruders and there are drugs in your home, your mistake means the death penalty. If your roommates possess drugs and mistake raiding police for intruders and shoot and kill an officer, you're looking at a murder charge.
Source: Phillip Ramati and Joe Kovac Jr., "'It just went wrong,' sheriff says of slaying," Macon Telegraph, April 5, 2006.
Cheryl Lynn Noel. In January 2005, police in Baltimore conduct an early-morning, no-knock raid on the the Noel home after finding marijuana seeds and traces of cocaine in the family trash. Noel, who's step-daughter had been murdered years earlier, retrieves a legally registered handgun when she hears the sound of home invaders rushing up her steps. A SWAT officer kicks open her door, and Noel, in her nightgown, is clutching the gun, not pointed, when he enters. The SWAT officer, wearing a bulletproof vest and helmet, and carrying a bulletproof ballistics shield, hits Noel twice from the doorway, then shoots her a third time from point-blank range. She dies.
Noel had no criminal record (her husband did, but his offense took place 35 years ago). She conducted Bible-study classes on her lunch breaks. Twenty months after the raid, and probably not coincidentally just weeks after the Noel family filed a civil rights suit, the Baltimore County Police Department awarded the officer who shot and killed Noel a medal for "bravery, courage, and valor" in shooting her.
So if you're a woman whose daughter has been murdered, and you mistake raiding police for criminal intruders, your punishment is death, and the officer who shoots you not only isn't disciplined, he's given an award.
Sources: Joseph M. Giordano, "Woman is shot, killed by police in drug raid," Dundalk Eagle, January 27, 2005; Joseph M. Giordano, "Petition reflects anguish," Dundalk Eagle, March 31, 2005; my own reporting.
# Tony Martinez. On December 20, 2001, police in Travis County, Texas storm a mobile home on a no-knock drug warrant. Nineteen-year-old Tony Martinez, nephew of the man named in the warrant, is asleep on the couch at the time of the raid. Martinez was never suspected of any crime. When Martinez rises from the couch as police break into the home, deputy Derek Hill shoots Martinez in the chest, killing him. Martinez is unarmed.
A grand jury later declines to indict Hill in the shooting, and he continues his employment wit the police department. The same Travis County paramilitary unit would later erroneously raid a woman's home after mistaking ragweed for marijuana plants.
So if police conduct a no-knock raid and mistakenly kill a completely innocent, unarmed person, it's no one's fault, because these raids are naturally dangerous and volatile, and it's easy to see how mistaken identity might happen.
Sources: Clair Osborn, "Survivors sue Travis county over fatal raid," Austin American-Statesman, May 10, 2003, p. B1; Claire Osborn, "Deputy not indicted in drug raid death," Austin American-Statesman, April 4, 2002.
# Edwin Delamora. On February 15, 2001, the same task force that would later mistakenly shoot and kill Tony Martinez raids the Del Valle, Texas mobile home of Edwin Delamora, who lives with his wife and two children. As two deputies beat down his door with a battering ram, Delamora fires through the door, fearing he is under attack. His wife is on the phone with 911 at the time he fires. One bullet from his gun strikes and kills sheriff's deputy Keith Ruiz.
Delamora had no previous criminal record, and his defense says the raid on his home was influenced by an anonymous informant who turned out to be the brother of two sheriff's deputies. Information about the informant's relationship with the police was suppressed at trial.
Delamora was eventually convicted of capital murder, and sentenced to life in prison. Police found less than an ounce of methamphetamine and one ounce of marijuana in his home. Prosecutors declined to seek the death penalty because of substantial doubt about whether or not Delamora knew the people outside his door were police. That decision sparked heavy criticism from Texas Attorney General John Cornyn (now a U.S. Senator), who moved for a law requiring the death penalty to be an option in any capital murder case.
Time magazine would later report that people in the community were suspicious of the narcotics task force, describing the team's general attitude as "those task-force guys were Rambo wannabes."
So if men are attempting to break into your home, and you mistake them for criminal intruders -- bolstered by the fact that your wife calls 911 -- you get no deference for the volatility or confrontational nature of SWAT raids. Mistake a cop for an intruder when firing your gun, and you're going to jail for a long, long time. And God help you if there's some dope in your house, too. When a member of the same SWAT team later mistakes and unarmed, innocent man for a deadly threat, and consequently shoots and kills him, the police officer won't even be disciplined, much less sent to jail.
Sources: John Cloud, "Guarding Death's Door," Time, July 14, 2003; Jordan Smith, "Another Drug War Casualty," Austin Chronicle, July 19, 2002; "Delamora attorney says key facts were withheld," Austin American-Statesman, July 29, 2002, p. A1; "Cornyn: Death penalty must be option when officer killed," Associated Press, July 25, 2002.
# Meredith "Buddy" Sutherland. On October 4, 2002, police raid a home in Windsor, Pennsylvania on suspicion of drug activity. Once inside, police go from room to room in the dark home. Trooper Gregory Broaddus enters a bedroom where Meredith "Buddy" Sutherland, Jr. is sleeping. Sutherland doesn't live in the house, but is visiting a friend. Officer Broaddus mistakenly believes Sutherland to be clutching a weapon when he enters the room, and fires, striking Sutherland. Sutherland has no weapon, and would never be charged with a crime. He spent 11 days in a coma, and nearly three weeks in the hospital.
Other occupants of the home were eventually charged with drug crimes. Sutherland sued in June 2004 for redress for his injuries. The state attorney general in turn asked that the suit be dismissed, arguing that the officer in question had qualified immunity, and that, incredulously, Sutherland himself was responsible for his own injuries.
So if you are an innocent person visiting a friend whose roommates are involved in drug activity, if a police officer mistakes something you're holding as you're lying in your bed for a gun, it's your fault for, I guess, lying there so guilty-looking, and your punishment is eleven days in a coma.
Sources: Elizabeth Evans, "Man sues over drug-raid injury; SWAT-type team hit Windsor home," York Dispatch, June 9, 2004. Elizabeth Evans, "Shooting victim home; Family of man wounded in raid considers lawsuit," York Dispatch, October 23, 2002.
# James Hoskins. In February 2004, Middletown, Pennsylvania police storm the home of James Hoskins on a drug warrant. They are looking for Hoskins' brother Jim, whom they eventually arrest for possessing "a small amount of marijuana, a glass pipe, and about $622," according to the Philadelphia Inquirer.
From his bed, Hoskins hears the loud thud of police breaking into his home. Naked and unarmed, he gets up to investigate. As he approaches the door, a Middletown detective pushes his way into Hoskins' bedroom. Hoskins and his girlfriend say the detective never identified himself. The detective fires, and later explains that he mistook the t-shirt Hoskins was using to cover his genitals for a gun. The bullet enters Hoskins' abdomen, and rips through his stomach, small intestine, and colon. It eventually lodges in his leg, which must later be amputated.
It isn't until weeks later, after he emerges from a coma, that Hoskins learns the man who shot him is a police officer, and not a criminal intruder. Remarkably, the Middletown Township police department saw no need to conduct an internal investigation of the shooting until prodded by the district attorney. The officer who shot Hoskins would never be disciplined.
So if a police officer mistakes a t-shirt for a gun and shoots an innocent man, we should give him the benefit of the doubt, given the volatile and confrontational nature of SWAT raids.
Sources: Larry King, "Man shot in apartment by police hopes for justice," Philadelphia Inquirer, April 7, 2004; "Pennsylvania Police Fail To Investigate Shooting of Unarmed Man," Associated Press, September 3, 2004; Laurie Mason and Harry Yanoshak, "Cop cleared in shooting of unarmed man," Bucks County Courier Times, April 23, 2004; Larry King, "Middletown settles police shooting; A Bristol Twp. Man had sued after a Feb. raid targeting his brother left him without his left leg," Philadelphia Inquirer, January 16, 2005, p. B8.
There are more examples, of course. Far, far too many more. See here.
Radley Balko | permalink | (0) track it | (0)
More Thoughts on Johnston, Raids
Defenders of the police tactics used in this case take a rather open-and-shut, legalistic approach to all of this. That is, if the warrant was legal, the police had the right to be at the home. And if the police had the right to be at the home, Johnston -- or anyone else in a similar position -- has no right to defend their home from them.
Of course, the mere legality of the warrant might have little to do with whether or not the warrant was correct. For example, a drug dealer might conduct a couple transactions from the porch of your house while you aren't home. Not much you can do about that. Or -- here's a possibility -- if you could win the trust of a frail, 92-year-old woman, her house would make great cover for a small-time dope peddler, wouldn't it?
The apologists say that if the warrant is legal, and the police have the right to be there, you're pretty much screwed. If the police storm in and you -- not being a drug dealer and consequently having no reason to think the police might break into your home -- mistake them for criminal intruders and meet them with a gun, you are at fault. I guess your crime is living in an area where drug dealers could use your porch while you aren't home, or being a too trusting, frail, old woman. Sorry about your luck.
On the other hand, if the police break into your home and they mistake the blue cup, TV remote, the t-shirt you're holding to cover your genitals because they broke in while you were sleeping naked, or the glint off your wristwatch for a gun -- and subsequently shoot you (all of these scenarios have actually happened), well, then no one is to blame. Because, you see, SWAT raids are inherently dangerous and volatile, and it's perfectly understandable how police might mistake an innocent person holding a t-shirt for a violent drug dealer with gun.
Do you see the double standard, here? If the warrant is legit, they are allowed to make mistakes. You aren't.
This discrepancy grows all the more absurd when you consider that they have extensive training, you don't. They have also spent hours preparing for the raid. You were startled from your sleep, and have just seconds to make a life-or-death decision. To top it all off, many times they've just deployed a flashbang grenade that is designed to confuse and disorient you.
What's the solution? It isn't to encourage people to start shooting raiding cops to kill. That kind of talk is foolish, and needs to stop. But it isn't to encourage to people to refrain from defending their homes, either. Both of those suggestions will lead to more people dying -- both police and citizens.
The solution is actually pretty simple: Stop invading people's homes for nonviolent offenses.
Radley Balko | permalink | (0) track it | (0)
This is HEAVILY edited down due to posting constraints.
There is a big difference in LEO-bashing and letting the chips fall as they may.
. I hope that is the worst that ever happens.