Well sorry, but the police had already established that he probably WAS a bad guy, and the magistrate agreed. Which is how the warrant process works. It's called PROBABLE cause, as there was PROBABLY evidence of a crime in the residence.
CCW Holder Killed In Warrant Raid
- Thread starter mattf7184
- Start date
- Status
Joejojoba111
Member
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2005
- Messages
- 1,056
I thought the judge was just saying it was reasonable to make a reasonable search for evidence which might reasonably be suspected to possibly exist in the house.
But you learn a new thing every day, search warrant means you're a bad guy and you probably have evidence of your crimes in your house.
Probably versus reasonable maybe; assumption of guilt versus no assumptions:
Good to know, but this is further from my original undersanding than I am willing to accept on information from an internet scholar.
No offence to you or scholars persons or the internet, simply stating that I don't quite believe you, and mean no offence by it.
But you learn a new thing every day, search warrant means you're a bad guy and you probably have evidence of your crimes in your house.
Probably versus reasonable maybe; assumption of guilt versus no assumptions:
Good to know, but this is further from my original undersanding than I am willing to accept on information from an internet scholar.
No offence to you or scholars persons or the internet, simply stating that I don't quite believe you, and mean no offence by it.
Joejojoba111, if there is probable to cause to beleive there are drugs in a residence, and the cops search the residence and actually find drugs in the house, what do you think is likely to happen to the person who lives there? . . . Well there was PC the drugs were there, and in MOST circumstances finding that evidence of the crime during the search helps establish PC that the person who lives there committed the crime. So the person gets arrested because they PROBABLY committed the crime in question. Again, as I said earlier being deliberately obtuse seems to be epidemic today.
Car Knocker
Member
:banghead:
fastbolt
Member
The media only knows what they've been given in press releases and statements, or what they've "developed" on their own ...
It's unwise to make judgments based upon media information.
Okay. Now think, "Tactics".
Nowhere on a Driver's License or on one's Carry Permit is there a little box marked "Smart".
Without attempting to make any comments on the specific situation which is the subject of this thread, I think the above statements by Art Eatman do merit some attention and consideration. Overall, very few of life's problems are "gun problems", in the respect that their solutions require the use of a gun ... and even those that may become 'gun problems' still require intelligence, common sense and good judgment ... not to mention behaving in accordance to the established and accepted laws of our society.
I suspect that it's that intelligence, common sense and good judgment part that may cause a lot of folks some occasional grief ...
It's unwise to make judgments based upon media information.
Okay. Now think, "Tactics".
Nowhere on a Driver's License or on one's Carry Permit is there a little box marked "Smart".
Without attempting to make any comments on the specific situation which is the subject of this thread, I think the above statements by Art Eatman do merit some attention and consideration. Overall, very few of life's problems are "gun problems", in the respect that their solutions require the use of a gun ... and even those that may become 'gun problems' still require intelligence, common sense and good judgment ... not to mention behaving in accordance to the established and accepted laws of our society.
I suspect that it's that intelligence, common sense and good judgment part that may cause a lot of folks some occasional grief ...
Cacique500
Member
Sorry but this just sounds really fishy...he seems to know a lot of the details about what happened but doesn't know if any drugs were found (as in...the whole purpose of the warrant?)
Unreal...so any CCW holder can now automatically expect SWAT while my neighbor with no CCW permit (but he does have firearms) gets a polite knock from a 'regular' officer?
I would've answered the same way (armed) - fortunately I'd most likely be upstairs where I'd at least have a couple seconds to try and figure out if it's BG's or SWAT before I started getting shot at or flashbanged.
DMF
The problem is that probable cause does not justify shooting a citizen. Even if there probably(maybe) evidence of a crime in the residence.
Also it didn't even say they had found any drugs in the first place.
Which likely means they didn't; if they had, it would be in the article.
Guess they could ask the guy (jetzt!!wos ist die droge) oh wait....Guess not.
Again not a good reason to shoot a man in his house before the poor guy could get a cup of coffee. How hard would it have been to knock and wait for the guy to answer the door.
The problem is that probable cause does not justify shooting a citizen. Even if there probably(maybe) evidence of a crime in the residence.
Also it didn't even say they had found any drugs in the first place.
Which likely means they didn't; if they had, it would be in the article.
Guess they could ask the guy (jetzt!!wos ist die droge) oh wait....Guess not.
Joejojoba111
Member
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2005
- Messages
- 1,056
"Well sorry, but the police had already established that he probably WAS a bad guy, and the magistrate agreed. Which is how the warrant process works."
You're starting to win me over, but I still think this is putting the cart before the horse. I understand how it could be a prevalent viewpoint, it appears a very easy mistake to make in my opinon.
For instance, and I don't want to sound arrogant because I'm really quite ignorant, but for instance a bird flies. Many may say it flies, therefore it's a bird, but some would point out that not all birds fly, and not all that flies is a bird. On a like note I would point out that not all searches find culpatory evidence. Therefore the judge signing a warrant does not mean their is evidence, and furthermore it cannot mean that the suspect is bad. To sum up, the warrant is a search for the truth, not an indicator of guilt. Just how I see it.
You're starting to win me over, but I still think this is putting the cart before the horse. I understand how it could be a prevalent viewpoint, it appears a very easy mistake to make in my opinon.
For instance, and I don't want to sound arrogant because I'm really quite ignorant, but for instance a bird flies. Many may say it flies, therefore it's a bird, but some would point out that not all birds fly, and not all that flies is a bird. On a like note I would point out that not all searches find culpatory evidence. Therefore the judge signing a warrant does not mean their is evidence, and furthermore it cannot mean that the suspect is bad. To sum up, the warrant is a search for the truth, not an indicator of guilt. Just how I see it.
Well let's quit mixing up the reason for doing the search with the reason for shooting. Again, arguments like what you presented are completely disingenuous, because the officers did NOT shoot him because of the PC that there was evidence in the house. They went there to search based on that PC. Based on what is known now they shot him because when the arrived to conduct the lawful search he presented a threat of serious bodily injury or death. So please don't try to mix the PC for the original crime, with the claimed justification for the shooting. They are two separate issues.
However, the PC for the evidence of the crime does relate directly to the claims some are making that he was PROBABLY not a "bad guy." By virtue of the fact the police had established it was PROBABLE he was in possession of narcotics at the residence to the magistrate judge, then it is PROBABLE he was a "bad guy."
Agreed. What the judge is saying is it's PROBABLE, not that is a known fact, just probable. Also agreed that not all searches tearn up evidence of a crime, but again the standard is probable cause to believe the evidence is there, not absolute certainty the evidence is there. However, as I've said anyone claiming he is probably a good guy, based on the CCW, is ignoring the fact that the magistrate believed there was probably evidence of a crime in the possession of Diotaiuto. Not very realistic to say someone is probably a good guy, if it has been established he's probably in possession of illegal narcotics.
The real question/problem that most people here seem to have is with the method of entry to serve this warrant. Everyone wants to know why this sort of 'dynamic entry' is needed. And, to reiterate, this was apparently NOT a dreaded 'no knock' warrant. The police, if they followed proper procedure, loudly knocked on the door and loudly announced their presence, and gave a reasonable period of time for the person inside to respond. They then forced entry into the house and attempted to secure it.
So, why is this sort of thing necessary?
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=79119&highlight=James+Beck
Now, there were problems with the eventual outcome of that situation, but the pertinent fact is this: they attempted to do warrant service the old fashioned way, by walking up to the door like gentlemen, talking to the homeowner and informing him that he was, alas, under arrest, and would he please place his hands behind his back...
Yeah, well, that didn't work out so well. Long story short, the suspect ended up pulling out a gun and shooting at the officers and killing one, prompting a massive standoff which placed the whole neighborhood at risk.
EDIT: I did a quick web search on this and found that they also might have tried another tactic, that of surrounding the house and calling on the phone for him to come out. He declined, and ended up shooting. Different idea, same outcome.
I could, I am quite certain, flood this thread with examples of where non-dynamic warrant service like this has earned quite a few police officers, quite a few suspects, and quite a few innocent bystanders untimely funerals. All it would take is a few minutes worth of work on Google. I'm equally certain that we could also flood the thread with examples of where police officers killed the homeowner/occupants in the process of conducting the entry. What we cannot do is easily determine how many dynamic entries were conducted without any harm to anyone, but I assure you the number is astounding. ONE of my PD's tactical teams did several hundred entries like this last year alone. And that is one of several teams. None of them made the news. No one died.
The key fact is that dynamic entries are far safer for everyone- officer, suspect, neighbors, occupants- in situations where it is thought likely that the suspect will resist the service of the warrant. The key is in the threat assessment, since it is obviously inappropriate to do this sort of entry for each and every warrant. The potentially lethal consequences of being too lax, however, are well known to police officers.
As to why they didn't arrest him elsewhere, well, let's think about this. He is known to be armed. Do we take him down at work, where there are plenty of potential victims and hostages? No? How about in his car, where he can go on a high-speed chase and really put a few lives at risk? How about in his front yard, where he can retreat back into his house where we can have the armed standoff we've been trying to avoid, or dive into a car, or go running through the quiet residential neighborhood popping off rounds? Oh, we should have him surrounded? Really? Crossfire, anyone? Bueller? Bueller?
The fact is that no arrest technique is perfect for all situations. Sometimes you DO take him down at work. Sometimes you DO box him in with cruisers and haul him out of his car. Sometimes you DO get him as he's pumping gas at the local Stop-n-Rob.
And yes, sometimes you DO kick down his door pursuant to warrant and take him while he's in his jammies, because it is safer for everyone this way, especially him.
You'll get shootings out of all of these scenarios, too. If the police end up blowing him away outside of a crowded club where he was DJing and place countless others at risk, I'm sure we'll all be screeching that they should have kicked in his door while he was asleep. Heck, take him in a traffic stop and he scoots off and blasts a carload of nuns on their way to confession and I know we will be. And God help the Public Information Officer if he takes and kills a hostage. How could the cops let that happen?
These are the realities of policing. For those of you who cannot get past the WOD, consider that the same realities present themselves with perpetrators of good old fashioned Common Law crimes, too.
Mike
So, why is this sort of thing necessary?
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=79119&highlight=James+Beck
Now, there were problems with the eventual outcome of that situation, but the pertinent fact is this: they attempted to do warrant service the old fashioned way, by walking up to the door like gentlemen, talking to the homeowner and informing him that he was, alas, under arrest, and would he please place his hands behind his back...
Yeah, well, that didn't work out so well. Long story short, the suspect ended up pulling out a gun and shooting at the officers and killing one, prompting a massive standoff which placed the whole neighborhood at risk.
EDIT: I did a quick web search on this and found that they also might have tried another tactic, that of surrounding the house and calling on the phone for him to come out. He declined, and ended up shooting. Different idea, same outcome.
I could, I am quite certain, flood this thread with examples of where non-dynamic warrant service like this has earned quite a few police officers, quite a few suspects, and quite a few innocent bystanders untimely funerals. All it would take is a few minutes worth of work on Google. I'm equally certain that we could also flood the thread with examples of where police officers killed the homeowner/occupants in the process of conducting the entry. What we cannot do is easily determine how many dynamic entries were conducted without any harm to anyone, but I assure you the number is astounding. ONE of my PD's tactical teams did several hundred entries like this last year alone. And that is one of several teams. None of them made the news. No one died.
The key fact is that dynamic entries are far safer for everyone- officer, suspect, neighbors, occupants- in situations where it is thought likely that the suspect will resist the service of the warrant. The key is in the threat assessment, since it is obviously inappropriate to do this sort of entry for each and every warrant. The potentially lethal consequences of being too lax, however, are well known to police officers.
As to why they didn't arrest him elsewhere, well, let's think about this. He is known to be armed. Do we take him down at work, where there are plenty of potential victims and hostages? No? How about in his car, where he can go on a high-speed chase and really put a few lives at risk? How about in his front yard, where he can retreat back into his house where we can have the armed standoff we've been trying to avoid, or dive into a car, or go running through the quiet residential neighborhood popping off rounds? Oh, we should have him surrounded? Really? Crossfire, anyone? Bueller? Bueller?
The fact is that no arrest technique is perfect for all situations. Sometimes you DO take him down at work. Sometimes you DO box him in with cruisers and haul him out of his car. Sometimes you DO get him as he's pumping gas at the local Stop-n-Rob.
And yes, sometimes you DO kick down his door pursuant to warrant and take him while he's in his jammies, because it is safer for everyone this way, especially him.
You'll get shootings out of all of these scenarios, too. If the police end up blowing him away outside of a crowded club where he was DJing and place countless others at risk, I'm sure we'll all be screeching that they should have kicked in his door while he was asleep. Heck, take him in a traffic stop and he scoots off and blasts a carload of nuns on their way to confession and I know we will be. And God help the Public Information Officer if he takes and kills a hostage. How could the cops let that happen?
These are the realities of policing. For those of you who cannot get past the WOD, consider that the same realities present themselves with perpetrators of good old fashioned Common Law crimes, too.
Mike
fastbolt
Member
Well let's quit mixing up the reason for doing the search with the reason for shooting.
Yep, some folks just don't watch out for that first step in their rush-to-judgment when they start to spin some reasoning for their arguments. It's a doozy to trip over, too ... and a lot of people always seem to trip over it.
It's always interesting when some interested citizens, and especially some attorneys, experience 'interactive training simulations', and generally always make worse 'deadly force decision' mistakes than they complain about cops making all the time ... just in simulated training environements, without real bullets facing them ... and these sorts of folks just KNOW they have the answers ... unlike the rest of us who have to do these things for a living, while we try to continue with that "living" part for the end of the day, and our families.
I used to love that bumper sticker from the 60's ... the one that said something to the effect, "The Next Time You Need a Cop, Call A Hippie".
Yep, some folks just don't watch out for that first step in their rush-to-judgment when they start to spin some reasoning for their arguments. It's a doozy to trip over, too ... and a lot of people always seem to trip over it.
It's always interesting when some interested citizens, and especially some attorneys, experience 'interactive training simulations', and generally always make worse 'deadly force decision' mistakes than they complain about cops making all the time ... just in simulated training environements, without real bullets facing them ... and these sorts of folks just KNOW they have the answers ... unlike the rest of us who have to do these things for a living, while we try to continue with that "living" part for the end of the day, and our families.
I used to love that bumper sticker from the 60's ... the one that said something to the effect, "The Next Time You Need a Cop, Call A Hippie".
duck hunt
Member
Coming late to the party, reason below:
Like a lot of folks here IIRC, I always answer the door armed, particularly in the off peak hours, as I consider 6am to be. I had some friends ambush me with doughnuts the other night at 11:30 (I've just had a baby so they knew I'd be up) and they said they were joking as they pulled up to the house about how armed I would be. IMNSHO there is a big difference between "pulling a gun" and walking to the door with one in your hand, in your own house. Apparently the SWAT team didn't think so.
Additionally, I have in the past had actual bad guys kick in my door, and they did knock first too, so I don't know if I'd be waiting for the police to show me their papers before beginning defensive fire. I know the whole "don't shoot at an unidentified target" rule, but when wood splinters, all bets are off. I've got a baby in here I've got to defend.
Thirdly, not surprised that they called in SWAT to serve a piddly possession warrant on a CCW holder. I've had a traffic cop call for backup pulling me for expired tags, and I'm 5'2 and look like Velma on Scooby Doo. Not exactly threatening. But I guess we're all scary gun-toting loose cannons in somebody's eyes.
Like a lot of folks here IIRC, I always answer the door armed, particularly in the off peak hours, as I consider 6am to be. I had some friends ambush me with doughnuts the other night at 11:30 (I've just had a baby so they knew I'd be up) and they said they were joking as they pulled up to the house about how armed I would be. IMNSHO there is a big difference between "pulling a gun" and walking to the door with one in your hand, in your own house. Apparently the SWAT team didn't think so.
Additionally, I have in the past had actual bad guys kick in my door, and they did knock first too, so I don't know if I'd be waiting for the police to show me their papers before beginning defensive fire. I know the whole "don't shoot at an unidentified target" rule, but when wood splinters, all bets are off. I've got a baby in here I've got to defend.
Thirdly, not surprised that they called in SWAT to serve a piddly possession warrant on a CCW holder. I've had a traffic cop call for backup pulling me for expired tags, and I'm 5'2 and look like Velma on Scooby Doo. Not exactly threatening. But I guess we're all scary gun-toting loose cannons in somebody's eyes.
The Real Hawkeye
member
I am well aware of that case. I studied it in criminal procedure, IIRC. Saw the video too. Not the same thing. That guy got out of his car, moseyed on over to his trunk, popped it open and retrieved his weapon, with the cop standing there watching him do it the whole time.
All I said was that if he fears a hunter, who has his gun locked up, so much as to treat him like he does, he should also fear everyone else, because anyone can be carrying a concealed weapon. Those with licenses to do so are far less likely to be criminals than any Joe picked at random. Or are you arguing that a hunter or CCW license holder who carries his gun in accordance with law is MORE likely a criminal than the average traffic stop? That's absurd. But if you treat them differently, you must believe that to be the case.
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
Two things are potentially wrong here. First and as I noted earlier, there are those that manage to have a long history of criminal activity, but manage to remain under the radar. Getting a permit means they can carry legally. In other words, they won't get in trouble for carrying a gun illegally if they have a permit for it.
The second is that while the guy may have gotten his CCW and was not a criminal at the time does not mean his situation has not changed. There are all sorts of first time offenders that have a lifelong history of no legal problems until they do something and get caught.
The CCW and background check only means that at the time it was issued, there was no record of serious criminal activity, and apparently the dope conviction at a teenager wasn't an issue for the CCW.
Ok, being perfectly honest, isn't the general idea that the time between knocking and breaching is specifically chosen to be short enough to prevent the person from preparing to repel the intrusion and also to prevent them from destroying evidence?
And wouldn't that mean that it's also probably too short for a person to rouse from sleep and perform the basic preparations that a reasonable person would perform before opening the door?
Or, asked another way. Would you say that it's common to arrive at a residence with a breaching team and yet not use them?
And wouldn't that mean that it's also probably too short for a person to rouse from sleep and perform the basic preparations that a reasonable person would perform before opening the door?
Or, asked another way. Would you say that it's common to arrive at a residence with a breaching team and yet not use them?
Kamicosmos
Member
I had a hypothetical thread like this awhile back that got locked cause it turned into a cop bashing thread. But I asked how to handle a situation of the 'home invasion' vs 'wrong address dynamic entry' type. Bascially shoot or take your chances that they are cops and they decide not to light you up, 'just in case'?
I don't answer my door when I don't expect someone to be coming. Call me xenophobic, paranoid, whatever, but I don't want to interact with random strangers selling crap, promoting the school football team, looking for work, whatever. The 'No Soliciting' sign on the door should indicate that I don't answer for just anybody.
So, I sure as heck will not answer the door at 6 am!! (And, I'm not going to get out of my nice warm bed to look out the windows either. I would roll over and go back to sleep.) So, a reasonable time would pass, the door would be kicked in, and regardless of hearing 'police with warrant' I will be sitting in or behind my bed, hand/shotgun ready, pointed at door, 911 on cell phone, dog going nuts...
Anyone care to guess what the papers will say after that little confrontation passes?
I don't answer my door when I don't expect someone to be coming. Call me xenophobic, paranoid, whatever, but I don't want to interact with random strangers selling crap, promoting the school football team, looking for work, whatever. The 'No Soliciting' sign on the door should indicate that I don't answer for just anybody.
So, I sure as heck will not answer the door at 6 am!! (And, I'm not going to get out of my nice warm bed to look out the windows either. I would roll over and go back to sleep.) So, a reasonable time would pass, the door would be kicked in, and regardless of hearing 'police with warrant' I will be sitting in or behind my bed, hand/shotgun ready, pointed at door, 911 on cell phone, dog going nuts...
Anyone care to guess what the papers will say after that little confrontation passes?
Reinforced house.....
I was planing on my next house being a poured concrete home. I think its going to need some further reinforcements as well.
-Bullet resistant glass in master bedroon
-Steel door frame poured into walls w/heavy steel door
-cameras on the outside and inside of house with monitors inside master beedroom
-fenced yard w/locking gates
-early warning system outside motion/seismic
-Alarms on all doors and glass with seperate zones identifed for each
-Dogs
It would sure take the suprise out of a situation like this. You could also see who it was trying to force there way into you home. It would also give you time to verify if they were real police or actors who only play police to do home invasions.
I live a clean life, I surely don't expect to be raided. In fact I feel a fake raid/home invasion is a lot more likely scenario than a real raid or a mistaken address raid.
Physical barriers would provide a good piece of mind and most likely stop an unfortunate event like this from occuring.
It would also provide a more suitable gun storage facility than most people currently have
I was planing on my next house being a poured concrete home. I think its going to need some further reinforcements as well.
-Bullet resistant glass in master bedroon
-Steel door frame poured into walls w/heavy steel door
-cameras on the outside and inside of house with monitors inside master beedroom
-fenced yard w/locking gates
-early warning system outside motion/seismic
-Alarms on all doors and glass with seperate zones identifed for each
-Dogs
It would sure take the suprise out of a situation like this. You could also see who it was trying to force there way into you home. It would also give you time to verify if they were real police or actors who only play police to do home invasions.
I live a clean life, I surely don't expect to be raided. In fact I feel a fake raid/home invasion is a lot more likely scenario than a real raid or a mistaken address raid.
Physical barriers would provide a good piece of mind and most likely stop an unfortunate event like this from occuring.
It would also provide a more suitable gun storage facility than most people currently have
I can't speak for all cops, just my experience. 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. Lots of times I've knocked, announced, waited, knocked and announced again, and waited some more, etc, etc, all the while hoping the occupants weren't preparing an ambush. All because we weren't sure we could justify forcing entry sooner. None of us are looking to trample anyone's rights, we're just trying to do our jobs, and do them the right way, protecting the rights and lives of ALL involved. That's the reality of knock and announce warrants.
bogie
Member
Sheesh.
Unless you're part of the crew who thinks that drug possession=hangin' offense, I think there's something a little fishy.
Especially if there isn't any drug possession.
Unless you're part of the crew who thinks that drug possession=hangin' offense, I think there's something a little fishy.
Especially if there isn't any drug possession.
beerslurpy
member
That's respect money cant buy. Thanks 2nd amendment!
RevDisk
Member
Na. Normally I carry a Mossberg 500 or SAR-1 to the door when folks knock at my door at 6:15 am. That's a bit early for any UPS/Fedex guy, and no one I know would do so without calling me first.
Ergo, it's someone I don't know and probably is not someone I'd invite into my house.
- Status
