CCW Holder Killed In Warrant Raid

Status
Not open for further replies.
This was a set up for his almost certain execution . . .
That's your warped view of it, but far from an objective fact. While I haven't addressed it on this thread, others have, and I have addressed it on other threads: These tactics to include times are used to MINIMIZE the chance of violence TO ALL PARTIES (cops, suspects, and innocent third parties). I know you refuse to believe that, but it's true. I don't know any cops that want a warrant service to result in a shooting, and I would refuse to do warrants with anyone that did. They would be UNSAFE to EVERYONE.

Every single briefing for warrant service I have been on the number one goal is to minimize the chance for violence. We prepare for what happens if things go bad, but we do our best to minimize the possibility of that happening. However, the only way to 100% guarantee that nothing bad will happen during a law enforcement operation, is to never conduct any type of LE operation. Sorry, but that would lead to anarchy.

I don't know why I try to explain this, because while you think that the vast majority of CCW holders are great people merely because their prints were run through the computer and they came back without a record, at the same time you wish to believe the vast majority of cops, who went through rigorous screening to get hired, lots of rigorous screening/training at their academies, and then more screening/training during FTO/probation are sitting around twisting their mustaches and hatching plans to "set up" suspects for "almost certain execution." Your logic is not based on fact or reason, but rather a blind hatred for law enforcement. Not only is it illogical, it's downright disgusting.
 
Both sides of this have valid points

Look I will say this before anyone accuses me of being a cop basher. I was a deputy sheriff for 2 years and spent 4 years in the USMC. No person's saftey is more important that my family, and using most of the LEO's posts here IF someone presents a reasonable threat of bodily harm any person regardless of their employer has a right to use force up to an including deadly force. I am not talking about USC or Insert your state revised statute Self Defense is a God given right. So using the very same logic and tactics if I am awakend and see several armed men I have a split second to react and most likely due to training I will fire to manuver and if it is the SWAT team with the wrong address I will die and most likley some of them will, if they were home invaders they most likely will disengage. This split second discision is one no homeower should ever have to make. Time is on the LEO's side yeah if you do only low speed high drag searches some guys may get away that time but I am more than happy to see 100 scum go free rather than one innocent executed via entry team.

Of course someone who you know is armed is most likely going to go to the door armed when they are not expecting visitiors

This is why these types of raids are so dangerous for all parties involved, My opinion is that there are some extremely rare situations where a dynamic entry would be ok in law enforcment but gathering evedince is sure not one in my book. I mean if officer saftey is the primary goal in these raids it would be a factual statement to say that using frags instead of flash bangs would be safer for the officers. There is a big difference (or at least there is supposed to be) from killing OPFOR on the battlefield and civilian law enforcement.
 
DMF said:
Every single warrant I've been on we had a plan to force entry. However, a rough estimate would be we've forced entry less than 10-15% of the time.
Are you saying that "having a plan to force entry" is the equivalent to "arriving at a location with a breaching team"? Or are you simply answering a different question from the one I asked. I can't really tell from the way things are worded here.
 
My opinion is that there are some extremely rare situations where a dynamic entry would be ok in law enforcment.
Absolutely, such as the case of an armed robber who is chased into a home. In that case, by all means, bring in SWAT and blast away. But there are not too many situations short of this which would justify putting a SUSPECT, who is presumed innocent in the eyes of the law (Does that actually mean anything to you police officers on this board, or is it just an empty phrase to you?), in such almost certain harm's way.
 
some examples

Thursday September 14 10:50 PM ET
SWAT Team Kills 11-Year-Old Boy

By CHRISTINE HANLEY, Associated Press Writer

MODESTO, Calif. (AP) - Authorities said a veteran SWAT team member with a
``star record'' accidentally shot and killed an 11-year-old boy during a
drug raid at his parents' home.

Alberto Sepulveda, a seventh-grader, was shot in the back Wednesday when an
officer accidentally fired his shotgun, Police Chief Roy Wasden said.
Alberto died on the floor of his bedroom.

``From the preliminary investigation, all indications so far is that the
shooting was accidental,'' Wasden said Thursday.

David Hawn, a 21-year department veteran and a SWAT team member for more
than 18 years, was placed on paid leave pending an investigation.

The boy's father, Moises Sepulveda, was arrested and booked on charges of
methamphetamine trafficking. The boy's mother and two young siblings were
also home during the raid.

The Drug Enforcement Agency said the raid had been part of a nine-month
investigation into methamphetamine trafficking and that 14 people had been
arrested Wednesday during separate raids.

Mike Van Winkle, a spokesman for the state Department of Justice, which has
500 drug agents and investigators, said no veterans he spoke with could
recall any other accidental shooting of children
during previous drug raids.

Last year, Hawn was cleared of wrongdoing for misfiring his gun into a
suspect who had already killed himself during a SWAT raid. An internal
investigation concluded an attacking pitbull brushed the
muzzle of Hawn's gun as he and other officers were checking the suspect.

``He has a star record,'' his chief said.

Moises Sepulveda Jr., 14, was on the top bunk bed above his brother when
the SWAT team banged on the door. He said he does not know if his brother
was awake when he left the room.

``My father said to stay calm. Then the front door blew open and they threw
out one of those smoke bombs,'' the teen-ager said, pointing to the brown
scorch mark left on the living room floor by the
canister

``My dad was cuffed and I was cuffed and one of them was stepping on my
neck, pointing a gun down at me and told me not to move,'' he said. ``I
heard another blast and thought it was another smoke
bomb.

``But it turns out they shot my brother.''

Sepulveda Jr., echoing the feelings of neighbors, relatives and other
community members, said he didn't understand why investigators did not try
to enter peacefully.

``We would have opened the door,'' he said. ``My dad isn't the kind of man
who would put his family in jeopardy.''
On March 25, of this year, 13 heavily armed Boston police wearing fatigue outfits smashed into the apartment of a 75-year-old retired minister, the Reverend Accelynne Williams. Williams ran into his bedroom when the raid began, but police smashed down the bedroom door, shoved Williams to the floor and handcuffed him. Williams may have had up to a dozen guns pointed at his head during the scuffle. Minutes later, Williams died of a heart attack. No drugs or guns were found in Williams' apartment. The police had carried out the raid based on a tip from an unidentified informant who said that there were guns and drugs in the building but did not give a specific apartment number. A policewoman simply took the informant's word, did a quick drive-by of the building, got a search warrant and then gave the go-ahead to her fellow officers to charge. An editorial in The Boston Globe later observed: "The Williams tragedy resulted, in part, from the `big score' mentality of the centralized Boston Police Drug Control Unit. Officers were pumped up to seize machine guns in addition to large quantities of cocaine and a `crazy amount of weed', in the words of the informant."
The Boston police commissioner apologized.
The press coverage made the event look like an isolated tragedy in the war on drugs. It was not.
No-knock police raids destroy Americans' right to privacy and safety. People's lives are being ruined or ended as a result of unsubstantiated assertions by anonymous government informants.
As early as 1603, English courts recognized that law officers were obliged to knock and announce their purpose before entering a citizen's home. Early American courts, such as the New York Supreme Court in 1813, adopted similar requirements.
Unfortunately, contemporary law enforcement practice does not reflect the patience or respect for individual rights that the founding fathers had.
Police do not keep statistics on warrants served at the wrong address or of the innocent bystanders killed or maimed in the war on drugs. But a search of newspaper files turns up a litany of law enforcement agencies gone berserk.
At two A.M. on January 25, 1993, police smashed down the door and rushed into the home of Manuel Ramirez, a retired golf course groundskeeper living in Stockton, California. Ramirez awoke, grabbed a pistol and shot and killed one policeman before other officers killed him. The police were raiding the house based on a tip that drugs were on the premises, but they found no drugs.
County Sheriff's Lieutenant Dan Lewis later tried to justify the raid's methods: "Our problem is that a lot of times we're dealing with drug dealers, and their thought processes are not always right from the start. That's when things get real dangerous for us."
Police told reporters the next day that, though the drug raid was a complete failure, they did find $8,500 in cash much of it in $50 and $100 bills, which the police asserted was consistent with drug dealers' cash-handling methods. Maria Ramirez, Manuel's daughter, said that the money was from the family business of selling jewlery at the flea markets. She has receipts to prove it.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On August 25, 1992, officials from the U.S. Customs Service and the DEA, along with local police, raided the San Diego home of businessman Donald Carlson, setting off a bomb in his backyard (to disorient Carlson), smashing through his front door and shooting him three times after he tried to defend himself with a gun. Police even shot Carlson in the back after he had given up his gun and was lying wounded on his bedroom floor. Amazingly, Carlson survived the raid.
The Customs Service mistakenly believed that there were four machine guns and a cache of narcotics in Carlson's home. Carlson related in congressional testimony in 1993 that even after agents failed to find any drugs, "No one offered me medical assistance while I lay on the floor of my bedroom. Event- ually, paramedics arrived and took me to the hospital. I was shackled and kept in custory under armed guard for several days at the hospital. During that time, I was aware of the hospital personnel referring to me as a criminal and of police officers and agents coming into my room."
The raid was based on a tip from a paid informant named Ron, who later told the Los Angeles Times, that he had never formally identified a specific house to be searched.
Customs officials had Carlson's house under surveillance for many hours before they launched the raid. The agents could easily have arrested Carlson when he arrived home at ten P.M. but instead watched and waited to attack until after midnight, when Carlson was asleep, in order to maximize the surprise. Although they had a search warrant based on the house being a drug storehouse, agents carried out the raid even after it became obvious that Carlson was living a normal life there.
The government finally admitted limited liability for Carlson's medical costs in March 1994, but the chief federal prosecutor, Alan Bersin, simultan- eously hailed the "courageous law enforcement efforts in the area of drug interdiction" involved in the case. "The tragedy for everyone involved is that no one acted other than in good faith," Bersin asserted. "We were deceived by our informant and must accept responsibility for that."
Bersin's statement implies that when federal agents launch a raid on some- one's home based solely on an allegation by a government informant, a "tragedy" occurs only when the informant deceives the agents. The Justice Department has indicated that no federal agents will be prosecuted for their actions before, during or after the raid.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In March 1992 a police SWAT team in Everett, Washington killed Robin Pratt in a no-knock raid while carrying out an arrest warrant for her husband. (Her husband was later released after the allegations on which the arrest warrant was based turned out to be false.) The Seattle Times summarized the raid:
"Instead of using an apartment key given to them, SWAT members threw a 50- pound battering ram through a sliding glass door that landed near the heads of Pratt's six-year-old daughter and five-year-old niece. As deputy Anthony Aston rounded the corner to the Pratt's bedroom, he encountered Robin Pratt. SWAT members were yelling, `GET DOWN,' and she started to crouch to her knees. She looked up at Aston and said, `Please don't hurt my children'. Aston had his gun pointed at her and fired, shooting her in the neck. According to attorney John Muenster, she was alive another one to two minutes but could not speak because her throat had been destroyed by the bullet. She was then handcuffed, lying facedown."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1991 Garland, Texas police dressed in black and wearing ski masks burst into a mobile home, waving guns. They kicked down the door of a bedroom that Kennety Baulch shared with his 17-month-old son. The police found Baulch holding an object in his hand. A policeman shot and killed Baulch. The object turned out to be an ashtray. The police say Baulch was advancing on them. The subsequent lawsuit contends he was shot in the BACK.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1989 Titusville, Florida policemen conducted a nighttime no-knock drug raid on the home of a 58-year-old painter, Charles DiGristine. The raid began as the police set off a concussion grenade and smashed through DiGristine's front door. When DiGristine's wife screamed, he hurried to his bedroom to get a pistol. A policeman dressed in dark clothing and a black mask crashed into his bedroom, gunfire was exchanged and the officer was killed. The local government prosecuted DiGristine for first-degree murder, but a jury acquitted him. (The police believed -- based on bogus information from an anonymous informant -- that the DiGristine home was a center for heavily armed drug dealers. The only drug they found in the raid was a small amount of marijuana owned by DiGristine's 16-year-old son.)
During the early afternoon of September 29, 1999, 13 SWAT team members stormed the upstairs apartment at 3738 high Street in Denver, Colorado, looking for drugs. They were executing a so-called "no-knock" raid, one of about 200 such warrants issued by the Denver PD last year. In such raids, the SWAT team simply breaks down the suspect's door, unannounced. Ismael Mena, 45, the occupant of the apartment, worked the night shift at the local Coca-Cola bottling plant and normally slept during the day.
After breaking open the front door and entering the apartment, the SWAT team officers found the door to Mena's room latched, and kicked it in. According to the officers, they found Mena, armed with an 8-shot .22 revolver, standing on his bed. Officers screamed "police!" and "drop the gun!" repeatedly, at which point, they attest, Mena started to put the gun down, asking, "policia?" At that moment, Sgt. Anthony Iacovetta emerged from behind a wall and moved to disarm Mena, at which point Mena once again raised the gun at police.
Colorado law allows police to use deadly force if they believe there is imminent danger to their lives; officer Kenneth Overman, standing at the top of the stairs facing Mena's bedroom door, opened fire, followed by officer Mark Haney. Mena allegedly fell back into a sitting position and, bleeding from head and chest wounds, lifted his gun again and fired at the police, precipitating more gunfire. Mena was hit by eight bullets in all.
No drugs were found on Mena's person or in his apartment. But the primary controversy in this case is not the conduct of the police during the raid, although protesters and commentators have certainly challenged that conduct. The issue, according to Denver officials, is that the day following the raid, SWAT team officers learned they had raided the wrong residence -- they should have gone next door, to 3742 High Street.
Officer Joseph Bini, the five-year veteran of the Denver police department who wrote and applied for the warrant to raid Mena's apartment, is currently facing a felonious charge of first-degree perjury for his alleged fabrication of evidence to obtain the no-knock warrant. He faces a sentence of two to six years.
Jefferson County District Attorney Dave Thomas, was appointed as special prosecutor on December 2nd, and spent two months investigating the Mena incident before officially charging Bini on February 5th. Thomas exculpated the SWAT officers, saying they were justified in killing Mena during the raid because he brandished a gun at them, but his investigation revealed that the warrant to raid Mena's house was fraudulently obtained. "At the heart of the whole incident is the search warrant," Thomas said. "It relates to an individual officer, Joseph Bini, making what we allege are false statements under oath, knowing they were false."
Thomas charges that Bini lied about the following things: That he received information that Mena's apartment was a crack house; that he saw (in person) his informant go to the house; that the informant went into the apartment with a suspect; and that drugs were bought at the apartment. Because Bini had not personally observed what he attested to in the warrant, Bini used the wrong address on the search warrant, apparently because he didn't know any better. His court date is Feb. 18.
"They felt extraordinarily threatened and felt very afraid of being shot," Thomas said in exonerating the SWAT officers. Denver Mayor Wellington Webb insisted that the SWAT team acted properly, and commented that, "if Mena did not have a gun or point it at police officers, he'd be alive today." Nonetheless, Mayor Webb ordered a review of the process by which search warrants are granted. He requested that Police Chief Tom Sanchez and Denver DA Bill Ritter study the criteria for issuing search warrants, the process by which requests for no-knock warrants are reviewed, and the frequency and effectiveness of no-knock warrants. The report is due in two months.
 
I am not trying to discuss the finer points of dynamic entry, just provide some examples of how dangerous these types of raids are.


To clarify my position a simple question for all in the thread:
Is any evidence worth killing someone over?, do not confuse this with a barricaded subject, hostage, ect If so why

I am not trying to offend here I just want to know what people think.

The question phrased another way:
Should a search warrant be executed with offensive forcefull action (breach,CS,FlashBang)?
 
Last edited:
carebear said;
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.

The problem is that sometimes there is a time limit involved with the warrant. If I get a warrant to search for a perishable commodity like drugs (not that a dealer is worried about them expiring, but they don't like to sit on them) and then wait a few days, the odds are they will be gone and the suspect will have a civil case if I didn't have eyes on the property the entire time.

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

I'm sure you're aware that there is violence in the drug trade. I think you're hung up on the fact that because the guy had a CCW that he must have only been dealing small quantities to his good friends and was really a good guy. The thing is we don't know that. All the fact that he possessed a CCW meant was that there was a very good likelyhood he would be armed when confronted. And plenty of people who are otherwise good, decent people have snapped and done things that got them into all kinds of trouble when confronted with an arrest for a minor violation. The SWAT team wasn't there to execute Diotaiuto, it was there to present him with overwhelming force to dissuade him from resisting. I'm not buying the mistaken identity thing. Show me one instance where a criminal gang dressed as SWAT officers to effect a home invasion to rip off a rival. Raid jackets and POLICE marked T shirts have been used. I have yet to hear of a gang wearing level IV armor and kevlar helmets and driving marked police vehicles.

TallPine said;
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

At 6 am, 6:15 or 6:45 am, whichever it was, the sun is well up. A SWAT team would have been dressed in distinctive uniforms with large lettering identifying themselves. It would be hard for even the sleepiest person who had any situational awareness to confuse them for anyone else.

Cacique500 said;
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.

They used SWAT because there was a greater potential for violence because Diotaiuto was known to be armed. We don't have CCW in Illinois, but if we know that a subject is armed we treat the situation more carefully then if we don't know. It's just being cautious. Like it or not, if you are known to have firearms and you are the subject of a criminal investigation, you'll be treated more cautiously. You'd do the same if the shoe was on the other foot.

The Real Hawkeye said;

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.

And how is you know this? Are you on the police board or a commishioner in Sunrise, FL? Or are you just spewing generalities you picked up reading World Net Daily? :confused:

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.

How many police tactical units have you been assigned to? What personal knowledge or experience do you have to back this statement up? The truth is, that SWAT trained officers aren't usually hot dogs. That type of personality doesn't last long in the business. People like you describe are too much of a liability to themselves, the public and the other officers.

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.

You're point doesn't hold up at all. All the possession of a CCW would indicate is that there is a greater likelyhood that the subject is armed. That's all, nothing more. It doesn't tell me what kind of day he had, it doesn't tell me that he didn't just murder his wife and her lover in a heated arguement and thinks I'm about to put him in prison for the rest of his life, it doesn't tell me that he didn't just get fired from his job three months short of retirement and this speeding ticket isn't the last thing he needs now, it doesn't tell me that he didn't just misdose his prescription and now he's suddenly paranoid. All a CCW permit tells me is that when that person applied, he had no criminal record and that he's more likely to be armed then another person who doesn't have a permit. I will make my decision on how to handle the contact based on all the information that is available to me, to include if he pulled over right away, if he's figiting around in the drivers seat, if he's visibly agitated when I speak to him....How many traffic stops have you made or how many other contacts with people have you conducted where you were going to cause them problems by your very presence?

Beerslurpy said;

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.

Let's see my friend, first you advocate the murder of your own employees as a way to change public policy that you don't have patience to change at the ballot box. Then you state that if the police take any actions against a CCW holder, it's murder because they should know he would resist?

I'm not sure The High Road is where you belong online....

TallPine said;
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.

How did you deduce that from the scant information that's in the articles?

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.

How do you know that he didn't? There are no details of the shooting itself in any of the articles.

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:

Have you ever wondered why we have these big panels on our turnout gear that say POLICE in big white reflective leters? Only in the movies do the bad guys go to the time and expense to make themselves look like the local SWAT team in order to do a home invasion. That fact would make it more likely he would have recognized the SWAT officers as being who they claimed to be then he would have recognized detectives with raid jackets over street clothes.

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.

If you don't engage in any of those activities or share your residence with those people who do, then the chances of that happening are virtually nil. Have there been cases of mistaken addresses, yes. Do they happen often, compared to the numbers of warrants that are served nationwide in a year? No.

Deavis said;
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.

Again, I have to ask how you know this? Were you there? Please point me to the news article that gave the details of the actual shooting. I must have missed it.

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, what is most likely, a darkened room when you are in a groggy state of mind. That is, of course, part of the purpose of an early morning raid, isn't it?

First off, in this instance, the sun was well up by the time the raid was conducted. We are assuming that the officers were wearing black. But that may not always be the case. We wear OD green here.

We also don't know if the shooting occurred inside the house, in the door way or outside. So there is no way to guess at what the visiblity was. This article says:

http://www1.wsvn.com/news/articles/local/MIA4696/
According to authorities, the Sunrise police SWAT team moved in on the house located on NW 21st Court looking for drugs, but instead encountered a gun-wielding suspect.[COLOR]


You could guess that the shooting happened outside the house, but who really knows? I suspect it might have considering that in some of the photographs the yard is cordoned off. If that's the case it kind of blows away the theory that Diotaiuto didn't know what was coming down.

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...

You are assuming the police knew the suspect was home. This may or may not have been the case. We don't know what information was used to aplly for the warrant, so we don't know why they planned it the way they did.

Jeff
 
Jeff, its not the police's home, its the victim's home. He has a right to defend it, especially against armed intruders in the early hours. The cops who attacked and then shot him on his own property are murderers. If he had shot them, it wouldnt be murder.

The reverse would be true if he had come to their houses, kicked in the door and then shot them. If they had shot him in this situation, it wouldnt be murder either.

It is really that simple. Everything else is just smokescreen. Even the drug search warrant is smokescreen. There are a million other ways to secure the searching of someone's residence without SWAT ambushing them when they are snoozing in the early AM.
 
And how is you know this? Are you on the police board or a commishioner in Sunrise, FL? Or are you just spewing generalities you picked up reading World Net Daily?
Unless I provide a citation, include a quotation, or assert that I have had personal experiences X,Y and Z, you can safely assume that my assertions are expressions of my reasoned opinion, based on what I believe to be credible information.
 
I'm so tired of this BS...

It's why I avoid these threads. The cops are always right blah blah. This is a prime example of why No-Knocks should be banned for all but matters of national security. Here is an example of one that went the other way.

Suspect aquitted of murdering police officer


I've spoken many times about the corruption in my local LE community. This little gem is an example of why...

While no-knock entries are legal in some cases -- such as where the threat of weapons or possible destruction of drug evidence is a factor -- the court said the supervising officer of the raid testified all the search warrants executed by his officers were conducted in a no-knock manner.

As for the line that the warrant listed 'canibis' as having been seized, well around here that's a no brainer. It's well known that the locals carry all kinds of contraband to throw down. This situation was guarenteed to turn up something whether it existed or not. If for no other reason than to CYA. Heck 5 leo's, FIVE, in the last 2 years alone have be fired for missing guns, drugs, and money from the evidence room here. It's not that there aren't ANY good cops here. Just a lot of bad ones. As the police chief said of the most recent firing, "I'm getting tired of surprises". I also laugh when people say "then get the feds to investigate". Well, they've been asked, so far they haven't. But we might as well ask DB Cooper to investigate bank fraud.

It's also worthy to note that many on here keep saying "elect people who will change the rules" blah blah. Well there is one fact that you can't argue and that is that the decision to serve a no-knock is ultimately the LEO's. They request it initially and try to justify that request, and then execute it. The police are the ones pushing for no-knocks, nobody else. That BS won't float here, sell it somewhere else.

In the link I posted I was pleased to see that at least 12 other people got it. If you serve a no-knock warrant and get killed it's your own fault. While tragic, the end result is that a police officer died, a man with a wife and children, because of police desire to play rambo and stop TWO OUNCES of pot from being destroyed. :barf:

And to those who thought that an earlier poster was advocating shooting police; I think you're mistaken. I think it's more an acknowledgement of where we're headed. Right, wrong, or indifferent, this type of thing will eventually lead to all out war between police and civillians. Any bets on who wins?


I.C.
 
I would like to ask DMF, and the other police officers on this board, to honestly tell us how they would react if someone smashed in the front door of their family home when they were sleeping in the early morning hours. Would you have had a gun in your hand when you went to investigate? In which case, would it be right to dismiss the shooting of you as a justified shooting?
 
Have you ever wondered why we have these big panels on our turnout gear that say POLICE in big white reflective leters?

Funny, I can buy those or even make my own in 10 minutes.

Even assuming you cant buy something that has POLICE printed on it, is the buying of white paint somehow restricted? Somehow I doubt I will have difficulty faking the magic symbols that identify someone as police. I can buy Level IIIA soft armor and trauma plates online as well. Crisat if youre willing to spend a little more. Ditto Helmets of every variety. All of this is easily available. I can be a fully kitted out SWAT guy in no time at all or at least look 99 percent of the part.

As a law abiding citizen, my only encounters with the police (they got called by the telephone company because their 911 system was broken) have been "ding dong" and then they wait out front until I answer. They had a police cruiser out front, and easily recognizable uniforms with little badges. You would have to be retarded to not recognize they were cops. They were polite and behaved like ordinary human beings.

If those same cops were to ring the doorbell and then hit the door down with a battering ram 10 seconds later while I'm finding my underwear, my first instinct would be to pick up a gun and kill whoever the intruders were. Not "I wonder if these are cops." Because cops dont ever behave that way except in the movies or on internet discussion boards. And I might get killed. There is a moral to this story and it had better not be "submit to armed intruders and you wont be hurt."
 
Have you ever wondered why we have these big panels on our turnout gear that say POLICE in big white reflective leters?
Went to DC a couple of years ago. Every other street vender is selling all kinds of clothing that says anything you want on it. They have FBI in big letters, and DEA in big letters. POLICE in big letters, on all kinds of clothing. I bought a nice black baseball style hat that said FBI on it. Stopped wearing it fast, though, because wherever I went, people cleared a path for me. Not used to that. Gave me a queasy feeling. Now it sits in my closet.
 
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,

Then why do it when he was home?

Why do it at 6:00 AM when he's likely to be sleepy and not in any condition to make a good judgement (knowing he could be armed)?

Because it's more convenient for the officers.

(1) If they find anything, they can arrest him (and not have to try and catch him at work or on the road) and they can proceed to search the rest of the house "incident to an arrest" (probably broadening the scope of their authorized searching).

(2) They believe that catching the occupants while "groggy and unalert" is safer for the officers (but, as this case shows, not necessarily for the less valuable civilians involved).

But, what really sets us civilians off is this fact:
I can't think of any simple [MJ] possession charge that [carries] a capital penalty. Ergo, perhaps in such cases it would not be unreasonable to try [to] avoid using enforcement techniques which make it MORE "probable" that somebody might DIE in the service of the warrant.

I've never seen a speck of evidence that "dynamic entries" are safer for the civilians involved. There seems to be lots of instances where they have proved to be unreasonably dangerous to innocent 11-year olds, 87-year olds, and sleepy occupants.
 
No one wants to answer my question?
In what cases should the police execute a SEARCH warrant prepared for offensive force and why?
 
As a cop, you should know that intent is not required for murder.

Well, I am not a cop. To me, throwing around the word 'murder' implies that they planned this out, and went in with the intent of killing him. I am not a lawyer, don't know the legal definition of murder, but that is what common usage tells me it means. It would have been more appropriate, in my mind, to use something like manslaughter.

It's why I avoid these threads. The cops are always right blah blah. This is a prime example of why No-Knocks should be banned for all but matters of national security.

Yeah, and on the other side, 'The guy with the CCW is always right', 'The police are JBT's', 'The guy's rights were violated by the man', etc.

And why should they be allowed for national security matters, if not for other matters?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top