SWAT Team overview.

[WolfMansDad]

1. there is no way you can have a hotel housekeeping employee enter a hotel guest's room and ensure 100% that they will never steal anything from the room.

If the thief is caught, prosecution is expected. Nobody rationalizes petty theft in a hotel room as justifiable. Also, your home is not a hotel room.

2. there is no way you can rent a car and be 100% sure it will not suffer a scratch, dent, or any other miniscule damage to it.

When you rent a car, both the patron and the rental establishment agree to the transaction. Both understand that innocent mistakes can be made, and there is a process for compensation, for redressing wrongs.

And there is a world of difference between a scratch on a car and the loss of a life.

3. there is no way you can go into a Las Vegas casino and play blackjack for 3 hours and be 100% sure you will not lose a dime.

Again, both parties have consented to play blackjack, and both have agreed to the risks. And money is just money. Blood is priceless.

There is a fundamental difference between property and lives. Lost property can be restored. Until you can raise people from the dead and make it all better, don't be cavalier in dealing out deadly force. If you can't insure that no-knock raids will never go wrong, then don't execute them, ever.

 

[molonlabe]

You reach a point where their paramilitary raids would give any rational person pause.

"If a widespread pattern of [knock-and-announce] violations were shown . . . there would be reason for grave concern."
—Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, in Hudson v. Michigan, June 15, 2006.

Taken form the CATO institute website.

So I see a need for grave concern especially for gun owners as we are slowly being demonized in the press other people and from our own government. I am afraid what we are seeing the start of things to come. The time to change this is now before it is too late.

 

[Spreadfire Arms]

Spreadfire, you keep insisting that the officers in Atlanta were merely defending themselves, but you gloss over how they got in that situation in the first place. They broke into a woman's home and threatened her at gunpoint.

they were defending themselves. they got into the situation while serving a lawful search warrant. this warrant was signed by a judge. they served the warrant on the correct house. they did not "break into" a woman's home. they lawfully forced entry into a house where they were legally able to. they were shot at first. they returned fire.

where does it say that they threatened her at gunpoint?

 

[dave_pro2a]

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

'Reasonable?' A home invasion warrent was issued over the sale of a small amount of pot. Someone was killed over a 'small amount' of pot.

'Probable cause?' (suspect did not live in house, hasn't been proven that sale of drugs took place within the home, or on the porch, the front lawn, the fence, etc)

Oath or affirmation? Hmmm, for some reason the courts and police have refused to release that information to date. Lack of transparancy creates suspicion.

'describe the person to be seized?' Hmm, that 92 year old lady, who owned the house, does not match the description of the original suspect at all (young black male). Plus, records available to the police showed that she was the sole owner and resident of the home.

Because a judge ordered it DOES NOT make it lawful. Because the police did it, DOES NOT make it legal.

 

[ozwyn]

the problem with No-knock warrants is the power to issue these warrants is implemented without the steps involved to make sure such power is used repsonsibly.

Someone here mentioned good old fashion surviellance before you execute the no-knock. Also the use of plainclothes officers in a no-knock should be questioned. (criminals have done home invasions while claiming they are police to "simulate" the no-knock for criminal purposes)

Threat evaluation. Where the F*** was the threat evaluation process? Was there a process? Sending in a full swat team on a no-knock on a target that doesn't justify it is expensive for the state, expensive in terms of risk to civilian lives, and a sure-fire way to piss people off.

no knock warrants are a priviledge given to the law enforcement community by the people. Yes, a priviledge. That's how they must be forced to view it, and it may be time to revoke that priviledge, or demand that a real process is implemented to provide oversight.

 

[Spreadfire Arms]

dave_pro2a wrote:

'Reasonable?' A home invasion warrent was issued over the sale of a small amount of pot. Someone was killed over a 'small amount' of pot.

it was a search warrant, not a home invasion warrant. you're using inflammatory language to describe a lawful search warrant signed by a judge. someone was not killed over a small amount of pot. someone was killed because she shot at the police. get your facts straight.

'Probable cause?' (suspect did not live in house, hasn't been proven that sale of drugs took place within the home, or on the porch, the front lawn, the fence, etc)

there is no part in the law that states the suspect must live at the place to be searched. the police did a controlled buy at the property of this house which resulted in the search warrant being issued.

'describe the person to be seized?' Hmm, that 92 year old lady, who owned the house, does not match the description of the original suspect at all (young black male). Plus, records available to the police showed that she was the sole owner and resident of the home.

ok, so if someone is shooting at you, you don't have the right to defend yourself because they are not the person listed on the affidavit? are you completely ignorant that the police were in imminent fear of their lives which is why they returned fire after being fired upon?

there is no legal standard anywhere that says that you cannot shoot someone who is shooting at you first.

for the record, nobody has proven that:

1. the police pointed guns at the lady first
2. the lady thought it was a home invasion robbery (and not the police)

can someone provide proof of either of these two issues? i have repeatedly asked this question, but of all of the people who are having a anti-police knee jerk reaction, nobody can provide evidence of either of these two.

Dave, you are not being reasonable when looking at the facts that the police officers, who were ultimately the ones who fired upon the 92-year-old woman, were faced with. most of them were probably not involved in the investigation, they were merely assisting with the service of the warrant. news stories said they were wearing POLICE raid jackets with POLICE written on the front and back. they had a marked police car in her driveway. they did not knock but verbally announced law enforcement presence. then they were fired upon. three officers were shot. they returned fire in self defense. and that makes the officers wrong? i don't think so.

i agree no-knock warrants should be issued very sparingly and only in extremely unsafe circumstances. if it was merely for the fear of destruction of evidence then all search warrants would be no-knock. it has to be something more than just the fear of destruction of evidence. it must be a safety issue - the safety of all involved. when the police come in with such surprise often times the persons inside the house do not have the opportunity to arm themselves, thus, there is no shootout. that is the reasoning behind a no-knock warrant. i agree that if no-knock warrants are abused then they should be taken away. however, this is not a clear-cut case of abusing a no-knock warrant. the lady fired upon the police first. people just refuse to remember that.

someone talked about surveillance on the house before the execution of the warrant. that wouldn't have changed anything. it doesn't matter if the alleged dealer resides at the location named in the search warrant or not, it still is a valid warrant. there is no legal requirement for the suspect to RESIDE at the place to be searched. surveillance would have done nothing to prevent this unfortunately. they still would have hit the door and she still would have shot at the police. surveillance could not have prevented or re-directed her actions. even if surveillance proved the person named as the alleged drug dealer did not reside there it would not negate the search warrant.

 

[dave_pro2a]

You got one thing right: "there is no legal standard."

I understand (based on the commercial links/refrences in your sig line) that you are somehow connected to the LEO community (read that, you make money off them).

Obviously we both have biases. Personally I find it incomprehensible that you can defend this situation.

 

[dave_pro2a]

Spreadfire Arms: "it was a search warrant, not a home invasion warrant. you're using inflammatory language to describe a lawful search warrant signed by a judge."

No, I'm not. I am using accurate words to describe the event.

If the LEO community can create propaganda words and phrases that are media friendly (i.e. "no-knock warrent," and "suicide by cop"), then we free citizens can create terms and use words that are based in reality to describe what really happens.

A no-knock warrent is in essence a home invasion warrent. Ripping off doors with violent force, after dark, without announcing that you're a government employee can reasonably be described as a home invasion. Responding with force is not only legitimate, but also prudent.

No-knock warrents are such an effective home invasion tactic that criminals have adopted the strategy and follow it to a T.

 

[Spreadfire Arms]

i sell firearms to both LE and non-LE. i make more off of non-LE because there are more non-LE customers.

regardless of who i sell to, my political opinion remains unchanged. the facts of this case have nothing to do with who i sell guns to either. the facts are that the search warrant was lawful, the search warrant was executed, and nobody knows why the lady shot at the police. nobody knows because she is dead and can't tell us why. it is unfortunate that this happened. i dont think the officers went in with the intent of killing this lady like many here infer.

you have your opinion and i have mine. i dont find it "incomprehensible" that you can have your opinion, which is primarily based off of emotion rather than the facts surrounding the case.

we both have our opinions, neither of which is better than that of the other's.

 

[dave_pro2a]

Spreadfire Arms: "ok, so if someone is shooting at you, you don't have the right to defend yourself"

Ok, so if unknown persons are ripping off your security door (literally off the hinges), after dark, in a bad part of town, and you're home alone, at age 92, after reading about a rape in the neighboorhood, and several home invasion robberies occuring nearby... don't you have the RIGHT to protect your life, liberty and property via the use of deadly force?

You want to serve a warrent for pot on someone who is PRESUMED innocent, then knock on the door, during daylight, wearing a proper police uniform. To do other wise should result in M.A.D. (mutually assured destruction).

 

[Spreadfire Arms]

again, youre working off an assumption. please provide some sort of evidence that the lady didnt know it was the cops and thought it was a home invasion robbery?

 

[dave_pro2a]

And you're working off MANY assumptions favoring the police in this situation.

Nearly all of what I described was actually outlined in several news stories (i.e. the rape, the nearby home invasions, the door, the announcement, etc).

What little I postulated was done so by imaging what MY 92 year old grandmother might do (or feel) in such a situation.

And what I did NOT postulate was that every FREE citizen does have a RIGHT to defend life, liberty and property. That is just a fact. Well, at least in most states, maybe not NY. UNKNOWN assailants knocking down the front door would seem like fair game to ANY reasonable person.

Blue, in the dark, looks just like black. That makes it real hard to tell the good guys from the bad guys. That's made worse when wood splinters fly BEFORE words or paper. So knock on the door, during daylight, and respect our rights -- going home alive and uninjured will be more assured.

 

[pcosmar]

Thr first reports,soon after, the police said it was a tip about drug activity.
Next they said a known informant said there were drugs there.
Then it was an undercover buy, from an unknown male (Jonh Doe or Sam)
They are still looking for the aledged John Doe.

They don't know= NO investagation
They didn't know the woman lived there.
The Judge signed a Warrant (if there was one) on what information that will pass Constitutional muster.

 

[Spreadfire Arms]

And you're working off MANY assumptions favoring the police in this situation.

please feel free to name them. i have only listed facts surrounding the case presented in news reports.

 

[pcosmar]

SpreadfireArms

You seem to be getting hung up on this one case. This thread started as a look at the many botched raids, and inocent victims.
If it happens once it is a tragic mistake.
If it happens twice, it needs to be looked into.
This has gone beyond three, there is a pattern here.

Inocent people are being killed and terrorized. What part of wrong don't you understand.
http://www.cato.org/raidmap/

 

[Spreadfire Arms]

.....still waiting for dave_pro2a to show where i have supported LE's actions based upon MANY assumptions. i dont believe he will find any......

 

[jnojr]

It's easy enough for criminals to get raid jackets that say ATF or POLICE or something. Just because the people busting into your house are screaming "Police!" doesn't make it so.

Here's the answer... if you swear out a no-knock warrant, you have to be right. No mistakes. You must have the right house, the right people, none of the wrong people, etc. If you can't manage that, then hit your suspects when they're outside of the house. If you hit the wrong house and the occupants defend themselves, they're absolved of all charges.

If you're wrong, you go to prison. If you injure or kill them, you get life or death. "But that will be an impediment to law enforcement, the police will be afraid to enforce the law!" No... they'll be afraid to swear out and execute "no knock" warrants, as they well should be. If they're too afraid to proceed, then there are plenty of other channels to pursue. If the suspect is a Really Bad Guy, and a no-knock is the only way to get him, then they'll dot all the i's and cross all the t's.

But when the "penalty" for raiding the wrong house and killing innocent people is going on paid leave and then the department paying out a few million, that's no disincentive at all. When you're always "right" because you're the police, and homeowners who defend themselves are prosecuted and convicted of murder, that's a police state. We have a de facto situation where the police are free to kick in our doors in the middle of the night at any time. Yes, no-knock warrants aren't "easy" to get, but they aren't impossibly difficult, either, as some would have us believe. Look at the increasing use of no-knocks. Look at what they're being issued for... selling a little marijuana is an offense worthy of a full-scale paramilitary invasion?

 

[TCB in TN]

Let's do it for the children!

I hate to use an emotional Brady/anti catch phrase, but seriously, how can anyone justify using no knock raids w/o an investigation of who and what is located at the residence in question. Reading a list of all of the botched raids, deaths, injuries, mistaken/incorrect addresses, etc. should make any rational individual fighting mad. Innocent people are being hurt/killed by LEAs! Even many of the folks found to have had drugs in their possession, but didn't resist and have been killed! All these raids do, is put Police in a situation where confrontation is not just possible, but likely! Not to mention the situation it puts an innocent (mistaken address, or wife, child, friend, etc of the suspect) in during the raid. You want to make your bust, and you want to "stay safe" then wait until the suspect leaves, do your search, and wait for he/she to return to bust them. It might be not be as glamorous, or as "cool" for the mall nija type, but it would probaby save a lot of lives.

 

[dave_pro2a]

Especially when the grounds for said warrent is based on a paid informant, or on a snitch who is trying to get out from under current charges.

And when the informants information is kept confidential, please... 'right to face accuser.'

Of course the cops want to believe the paid CI or snitch, because that'll get them access and possibly lead to a lucrative bust. The judge, sitting behing his mahogany (or teak, or marble) bench could really care less, as long as it meets the bare mininum of legal stanards.

Neither cops or judges will be held personally responsible if things go wrong (except for very rare cases), so there's no incentive to care about getting things right.

Personal responsibilty involves facing consquences on par for the transgression. Police and judges should be no exception. Fix that problem, and no-knock warrents will become rare indeed imho.

 

[wingman]

Having cops think and act like the military IS the problem.

That is my concern on this issue, since the 80's it seems, county, state, city, and federal all want their own teams and from what I've seen many are young men with no combat experience and many new toys anxious to prove themselves in battle. I am not saying all but enough to be of concern. It's simply overkill to a problem that "normally" has a easy solution.

 

[dave_pro2a]

Spreadfire Arms, I'm not playing tit-for-tat. We've read the same articles and have drawn different conclusion, or at least focused on different aspects of the reports.

Other intelligent readers can determine for themselves what's an assumption and what isn't, who's biased and how much so, etc. There's no subsitute for folks thinking things through for themselves

 

[Blackfork]

Swat Teams should be RARE, not the NORM

110 SWAT team raids TODAY in the nation. This nonsense needs to STOP, and it's not GOING to stop until we demand that our representatives stop it.

There aren't any 92 year old black female drug dealers, in Atlanta or anywhere else. The Atlanta POLICE chief NOW says that the informant says he never bought drugs at this address and the police asked him to lie. If he IS lying, then what does that say about the informants the police are relying on to run SWAT raids? If he is telling the truth, then many Atlanta PD folks have been lying through their teeth.

This nonsense needs to stop.

 

[Spreadfire Arms]

Dave,

i take it that since you could not find ONE example of me assuming anything, you concede that you did not have any proof whatsoever and that you merely accused me without merit.

 

[dave_pro2a]

ROFLMAO@Spreadfire Arms

Man, you're unreal.

 

[Spreadfire Arms]

whats truly ironic dave is that it is okay for you to operate on unfounded assumptions, but when the cops follow a lawful search warrant they are 100% guilty. it shows the rules apply to them but not to you.