Another Isolated Incident...*Because* He Was a (Legal) Gun Owner

[mgkdrgn]

I'm sure you'll take comfort in those numbers when it's your door being kicked in at 3am, your dogs dead on the floor, and your family in handcuffs lying next to them (if you are lucky)

Once in a blue? Would an error rate of approximately 0.1% qualify as "once in a blue moon?"

The first time the CATO/Radley Balko "raid map" and editorial were presented here, I did a little quick math:



http://www.cato.org/index.html

"Cato is also releasing an interactive raid map that plots nearly 300 examples of mistaken raids since the mid-1980s, including 40 cases in which in innocent people have been killed, 20 cases in which offenders with no history of violence were killed, and 22 cases resulting in the needless death or injury of a police officer."

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6476

"These increasingly frequent raids, 40,000 per year by one estimate . . . "

Let's look at what these numbers really tell us. (assuming Balko hasn't "fudged" the numbers which is quite possible considering his penchant for distorting the truth to fit his agenda.)

Assuming the 40,000 per year number is only for recent years, let's assume it averages to 15,000 raids a year since the mid 80s. That's 300,000 raids in the last 20 years.

300 mistaken raids means a 0.1% error rate. No person, or group of people is perfect, but that error rate is pretty damn close.

Further, how many of these raids were actually knock and announce where the occupants refused service of the warrant, and the officers were required to use force to enter the premises? How many were NOT served by a tactical team, but by everyday officers/agents doing their jobs?

Unfortunately many folks, including people participating in this thread, equate any forced entry with a "no knock" warrant, and a SWAT team. However, that is far from the truth. Look how many people were screaming about SWAT over the warrant in Alanta last week, but it was NOT a SWAT team that served that warrant. I've also seen many people on this forum get wound up about a no-knock warrant in other threads, when in reality it was a knock and announce where the occupants refused to admit the officers to serve the warrant, so the officers had to force entry.

I'm not asking anyone to ignore the ALLEGED 300 errors, I'm merely pointing out how very low the error rate really is.

Also, if you want a zero error rate then you must want the police to NEVER serve a warrant, because that is the only way to get the error rate to zero. If that is what you want then you are asking for anarchy.

 

[gripper]

Maelstrom, I mind muy own business and bother no one...I do not want trouble with any one,rrespective of how they earn their money...
But if my boundaries are vilated and my friends ( human or canine) are endangered...well if whoever is kicking my door does NOT kill me on the spot then there will be a reckoning.
If you wish to interpret that clearly articulated statement as a blanket "kill cops " statement than I feel sorry for you .

 

[Duke of Doubt]

I've always selected my houses and apartments with an eye to visibility, lines of sight, approaches, defensive positions and so forth. In my current situation it is difficult to imagine being completely surprised with only seconds to react. Several doors to force, narrow stairways and passageways to reconnoiter and navigate, darkened rooms and hallways to clear, all before anyone lawful or unlawful gets near me. Plenty of time for me to see and hear what's going on, and to either surrender myself unseen to police forcing their way in, or to take a defensive stand against assailants.

The downside is the risk of "creating a standoff", as I will not immediately be found, but again, as soon as lawful authority identifies itself (and not just by screaming "Police!"), I would surrender. Keep in mind we're not talking about the Gestapo here; at most I would suspect one of my clients ran amok and police had some reason to suspect he was to be found at my place. I don't engage in the sort of activities that would suggest a no-knock warrant, and a mistaken location is unlikely (police know me and have been here before).

 

[twoclones]

Nowhere does it say they didn't knock because he legally owned a gun, but because the household was suspected of containing stolen weapons from police vehicles.

That is NOT what it says...

First the article said, "Police then searched his house, looking for items stolen from two marked police cars." Items are not necessarily weapons.

The reply was" "..when police have reason to believe there might be firearms in a residence"

 

[Duke of Doubt]

Again, poor reporting I suspect.

 

[Maelstrom]

A copy of the warrant provided by Hasenei listed items to be seized, including a Sig Sauer Rifle and three ammunition magazines for the rifle, as well as a police gear bag, county police field procedures manual and guide, and more police-related items.

Actually, the way I read it, the rifle was stolen from the police car.

You list items to be seized because they're evidence. Not just because you own it legally. No judge would sign off on a search warrant to seize legal items.

 

[riverdog]

Bottom line though was they raided this guy's house to seize evidence that wasn't there and they had no way of knowing it was there. So in not knowing the stolen rifle was there, LE couldn't have known he was armed.

Do they "know" his son stole the police equipment? How so? Informant? They need some information as a basis for the warrant. It seems a lot of police informants are a little loose with the truth, and LE doesn't seem to give a **** when they're wrong. Never admit you're wrong and never apologize.

 

[rbernie]

Again, I'll ask those with experience in these sorts of things from a LEO perspective; if the stolen item was NOT a firearm but was an item of equal/greater value and equally hard to destroy via ordinary means (no flushing it down the toilet), would it still be OK via policy to use the tac team to recover/seize it?

 

[gripper]

So,Maelstrom....every time an LEO loses/misplaces /has stolen his/her issued equipment,gear that many of us "ordinary civilians" need top jump through hoops to legally aquire;this is sufficient probable cause for dynamic entry???Base on the word odf a CI??You know,those folks that are ALREADY in a jackpot and looking to deal themselves out???
Forgive me,but my original statement stands:MY abode+NO INVITE,and/or DEAD/INJURED dog(s) guests=bad things happeninfg to the gate crashers if I am still alive at that point.
I think of it as the universal human response to hostile boarders...might not be a firearm...might just be something sharp and pointy ...or maybe a blunt/heavy object....Oh ,wait a mintute;does that qualify as bloodlust???Silly me....

 

[Jeff White]

Again, I'll ask those with experience in these sorts of things from a LEO perspective; if the stolen item was NOT a firearm but was an item of equal/greater value and equally hard to destroy via ordinary means (no flushing it down the toilet), would it still be OK via policy to use the tac team to recover/seize it?

It depends. Depends on if the person is known to be armed, if he is known to be violent (people who live criminal lifestyles are almost always known to the police). Most search warrants in this country are served by uniformed officers and detectives simply knocking at the door, presenting the warrant and conducting the search.

Do they "know" his son stole the police equipment? How so? Informant? They need some information as a basis for the warrant.

Go back and re-read my previous post. Search warrants are not easy to get, nor should they be.

 

[Boats]

On a related note, who pays for the physical destruction involved in "serving" up a no-knock raid?

When the police admit they didn't find anything in the warrant, yet a dog's body needs disposing of, some doors, door jambs and hinges are undoubtedly destroyed, and a man's mattress is bullet holed, is the "servee" left holding the bag?

 

[Duke of Doubt]

Boats: "On a related note, who pays for the physical destruction involved in "serving" up a no-knock raid? When the police admit they didn't find anything in the warrant, yet a dog's body needs disposing of, some doors, door jambs and hinges are undoubtedly destroyed, and a man's mattress is bullet holed, is the "servee" left holding the bag?"

No, the owner's homeowner's or rental insurance company makes a settlement with the police agency. That's not the big problem. The big problem is that the home is left wide open to thousands of thieves, with only a piece of yellow tape to keep them out while the owner stews in holding.

 

[X-Rap]

If they didn't know that the son had moved and were working off the old address then how did they do a no Knock the same night on the sons new so called unknown address?
This whole discussion takes me back to the home fortification thread. Its simple to me, make your home difficult for anyone to make a quick forced entry and you are ahead in the game.
If you live a clean life and do nothing that would constitute your being killed then the defense of your home should be expected and respected.

 

[akodo]

lets abstract this away from the 2nd amendment to all sorts of other rights.

To what extent do we accept the abgidgment of other rights in the name of police officer safety?

Are the police allowed to continue to hold someone in jail once they have been aquitted in a court of law if it is a good chance they really are a cop killer, they just got off on an evidence technicality?

If the police bring someone in for questioning, and later decide that the person isn't a good candidate, can they force that person to remain silent about the details of the case? Can they hold that person in jail?

How well would it sit if the police decided to get a no-knock warrant because 'the target was a muslim, hence for officer safety we didn't want to walk casually into a terrorist cell'

What about a target who has been publishing works that are anti-government, calling for action to be taken, including violent action. Is that alone enough to ask for a no-knock warrant?

 

[Flyboy]

Depends on if the person is known to be armed

I am known to be armed (or reasonably suspected, given my carry permit and the number of firearms I've purchased).

The statement given--we'll assume it's accurate for sake of discussion--was that the ninjas were employed because the police believed there were firearms in the home.

Taken together, these two facts would seem to indicate that the police department in question would execute a search warrant on my home with a violent invasion, merely because of the preceding fact. Your statement ("known to be armed") would seem to suggest that you agree with that department.

Or do I misunderstand you?

 

[Duke of Doubt]

akodo: "Are the police allowed to continue to hold someone in jail once they have been aquitted in a court of law if it is a good chance they really are a cop killer, they just got off on an evidence technicality?"

No.

"If the police bring someone in for questioning, and later decide that the person isn't a good candidate, can they force that person to remain silent about the details of the case? Can they hold that person in jail?"

No.

"How well would it sit if the police decided to get a no-knock warrant because 'the target was a muslim, hence for officer safety we didn't want to walk casually into a terrorist cell'"

Such a warrant is unlikely to issue, but I'd be perfectly content as a personal matter.

"What about a target who has been publishing works that are anti-government, calling for action to be taken, including violent action. Is that alone enough to ask for a no-knock warrant?"

Possibly, but probably not. Depends on the specific circumstances.

 

[gripper]

By "publishing works" do you mean stating in an on line forum that the person will not tolerate aggression/invasion in his or her home irrespective of the invaders "public trust position"?Or a "call to jihad" type of thing where the publisher/author/poster calls for acts that we can ALL agree have no grey area-mass murder of innocents by acts of terror,violence to be directed at people due to their national /ethnic origin,religion/lack thereof, pick any classifier you like?
Don't misunderstand, I LIKE what Akodo posted RE "do we accept the abridgement of rights in the name of officer safety?"...It seems to me ,that when we did NOT lightly abridge BOR/Cosnstituional rights that we actually had a better "I got your back-you got mine" relationship with many in law enforcement....case in point,I can remember many police officers ,both in urban and rural settings that ENCOURAGED an armed and lawful citizenry,beacause as one put it:"We work for you , and if th eunthinkabl ehappens we are ALMOST always there after the fact-until we get there you may be on your own"....This was often at odds with the CLEO/ADMIN. who may or may not have been a political appointee( or merely of an elitist mindset).

 

[Jeff White]

I am known to be armed (or reasonably suspected, given my carry permit and the number of firearms I've purchased).

The statement given--we'll assume it's accurate for sake of discussion--was that the ninjas were employed because the police believed there were firearms in the home.

There are no such things as ninjas and we'll refrain from name calling, it does nothing to promote civil discussion....clear?

Firearms in the home is not the same as known to be armed. Around here there are firearms in just about every home. In most places in the US the police have no way of knowing what firearms anyone has purchased. Known to be armed means does the suspect carry a firearm, does the suspect keep loaded firearms stashed around the house ready for use.....Owning firearms is not the same as known to be armed.

Taken together, these two facts would seem to indicate that the police department in question would execute a search warrant on my home with a violent invasion, merely because of the preceding fact. Your statement ("known to be armed") would seem to suggest that you agree with that department.

Or do I misunderstand you?

It's the totality of the circumstances. A criminal history is run on the suspect and everyone believed to be in the home, regular files are checked for contacts the investigating agency and other agencies in the area have had with the suspect. The crime that is being investigated is taken into consideration. The presence of children is taken into consideration. Everything that is known about the suspect is compiled and the decision of how to handle things is then made.

Don't forget that in this instance there was enough probable cause to convince a judge to issue a no-knock warrant if in fact this case really was no knock.

 

[Flyboy]

Known to be armed means does the suspect carry a firearm, does the suspect keep loaded firearms stashed around the house ready for use.....Owning firearms is not the same as known to be armed.

Fair enough. Does going to the trouble of getting training, then applying for a permit to carry a firearm suggest that the suspect carries a firearm?

Don't forget that in this instance there was enough probable cause to convince a judge to issue a no-knock warrant if in fact this case really was no knock.

As there was in Atlanta, where it was ultimately revealed that judges were literally rubber-stamping warrants.

You're making the mistake of believing that the police and the courts are doing everything the way they're supposed to be done. I prescribe a daily regimen of television and/or print news; it should clear you right up.

 

[GTSteve03]

You're making the mistake of believing that the police and the courts are doing everything the way they're supposed to be done.

But you see, they are. This is just another isolated incident in a sea of isolated incidents.

 

[Jeff White]

You're making the mistake of believing that the police and the courts are doing everything the way they're supposed to be done. I prescribe a daily regimen of television and/or print news; it should clear you right up.

You make the mistake of believing that negligence and criminal misconduct by the police and the courts is commonplace. I prescribe a daily regimen of reality, should clear up all of your misconceptions. The time there are screw up make the news exactly because they are screw ups. How many cases do we discuss here, usually for short time before the thread is forced to be closed compared to the number of warrants served in this country where everything was done right? I suggest you go back a few posts and read what DMF posted again. The police and the courts in this country have a better record for doing things right then any other police and court system in the world. But here is a little thing for you to remember; the police and the courts are run by human beings with all of the failings that brings. Nothing human beings are involved in will ever be done 100% error free.

 

[Flyboy]

You make the mistake of believing that negligence and criminal misconduct by the police and the courts is commonplace.

I don't believe it's commonplace (though I do believe it is more widespread than reported--police departments don't go around advertising their mistakes and unnecessary actions). That said, I take the same approach toward these sorts of raids that Pres. Johnson advocated toward legislation: "You do not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harms it would cause if improperly administered."

How many cases do we discuss here...?

The regularity with which this topic arises is what I would call a "clue."

Nothing human beings are involved in will ever be done 100% error free.

I wholeheartedly agree. That's why I advocate reducing the opportunity for mistakes. By not engaging in violent raids in the first place, the opportunity to accidentally shoot somebody is avoided.

 

[Duke of Doubt]

I tend to agree, Flyboy.

The right can't have it both ways. We can't bemoan all the criminals who supposedly "get off on technicalities" (usually meaning an unjustifiable or unwarranted stop or search, or police abuses, or evidence excluded as "unreliable") and then turn around and say that police seldom err.

The question is, how good do we want to insist the police be? A century ago cops did things most of us would not even believe, today. Their training and proficiency were ... deficient. Nowadays they are far, far better, but not perfect. The question is, do we want to train them up to higher standards, at higher cost? I don't. I'd rather let a few criminals get away, for awhile, and get rid of these dangerous SWAT situations, except for highly extraordinary circumstances.

 

[riverdog]

I'm of the opinion that most (pick a high percentage) police go by the book and follow procedure, and that negligence and criminal misconduct by the police is in fact rare. That said, their source of intel on this one was either mistaken, blowing smoke or the rifle and other gear was there, but moved before the warrant could be served. We may never know, but the dog is dead and that's too bad.

I've never found the Australian Cattle Dog (aka Blue Heeler) very likable, but I've never owned one. However, I've also never seen one aggressive to people -- other dogs yes, very aggressive to dogs not in the pack, but not people. But then I didn't knock their owner down. I imagine it could have gone into protect mode when its master was knocked to the ground.

 

[Jeff White]

Quote:
How many cases do we discuss here...?

The regularity with which this topic arises is what I would call a "clue."

Out of how many warrants served? And in how many of those cases have the police been right after the facts came out? We always have this emotional discussion based on a flimsy news article. Months later when facts are brought out in court it's seldom mentioned here. When one of us posts a followup the thread usually dies a quick death and drops off the front page after one or two posts. Why? Because it's not as much fun to have a fact based discussion as it is to rant about a perceived injustice.

By not engaging in violent raids in the first place, the opportunity to accidentally shoot somebody is avoided.

It's been determined time and again that the tactics, techniques and procedures used are safer for everyone involved. Do you think the same TTPs would be used over and over given all of the litigation involving these operations when something goes wrong? Use of force continuum's changed almost overnight after the Rodney King incident. Why have none of the botched tactical operations not caused the same sea change? It's not because millions in settlement money hasn't been paid out and there is no court precedent for it. It's because the liability for not resolving those same situations in the best possible manner is greater. Quite simply, if those tactics, techniques and procedures were not the best accepted practices, they wouldn't be used.