Raiding Wrong Home Parting Comment

Status
Not open for further replies.
G

GSMD Fan

Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2003
Messages
49
As I have been quoted (twice) just want to add a parting comment on the earlier thread.

And of course I will be civil.

Taking a quote from an post without reading the entire post can present a false picture.

The quote about the capabilities of "my guys" going through a door does not mean they feel invulnerable, enjoy doing it, or intend to threaten/harm folks.
If you read the entire post I said mistakes are a no win situation for all involved. Nothing good comes out of it. It was good in the case listed no one was killed.

I wrote about the "guys" because I really can not believe that there are folks who think they will out fight a trained tactical team. And then they say the cops watch too many movies and have rambo fantasys. What I am saying is clear, when folks roll out of bed and shoot it out with a team of well armed men the bed roller will lose (getting one or two when you are dead does not mean much). Period. It doen't matter if you play paintball or have a FAL.

Regardless if the bed roller is a criminal or not this is horrible for all involved. Not to many LE want to take a life, especially an innocent one.
 
GSMDfan,

Yes, It would be a terrible thing to be an active participant in a "wrong address-no-knock-justified-self-defense-yet still dead as nails" situation... on either end.

Should any SWAT team come thru my door (or others who post here), I guess my problems in life would be over, period.

Yours (or said SWAT Team member) would be beginning, but would quickly be ruled "Justifiable Use of Force" by our local coroner's office.

No sweat for me. Don't know what my family would be going through tho', do you? For you guys... Maybe a little counseling from your chaplain, then back to work as usual.

Scary sometimes, those dynamic entry things, huh?

Just keep getting the right "bad guys" and you'll never hear a complaint outta me tho', I do appreciate that thin blue line being there when used properly (which is 99.999% of the time... and we never hear about those typically)

Adios
 
For you it's about winning or losing.

You may not like it when I say you feel invulnerable, but the fact is that if you really thought there was a good chance you would get killed the next time you went in, you would change jobs.

For the homeowner it's not about winning or losing, it's about living or dying--or even worse. It's also not about SWAT coming in, about getting roughed up or tasered. It's about home invaders, about getting to watch your daughter raped while your wife is forced to cook them a meal.

I don't worry about "losing". I'm not going to try to "outfight" anyone. I don't even think there's a good chance that I'll live through it. My resistance isn't a product of my competitive nature, or even necessarily a struggle to survive. I plan to resist because because I can not tolerate what might happen if I don't.

The fact that you can actually use terms like "lose" or "outfight" in this context is amazing to me. It makes it abundantly clear how differently you view this than I do.

Besides, it's not like I'm planning to try take out a SWAT team. I'm not even planning on "getting one or two when I am dead". This isn't about SWAT. It's about criminals breaking into my house. I'm preparing to defend my family against HOME INVADERS. You make it sound like I WANT SWAT to come in, like I'm planning for SWAT to come in. I don't want ANYONE to come in, but the main point is that I DON'T want LEOs bursting into my house in the wee hours because there is no way I can reliably figure out that they're the "good guys" in the time I have to make the decision.

The entries are planned for darkness--for the time when the subject is maximally disoriented. Then the confusion is magnified by lots of noise and bright lights. How can a maximally disoriented person read what's written on someone's shirt in the dark while lights are being shined in his eyes?

Even if he could, how would he automatically know it was the police and not a gang who knew how to use a spray can and a stencil?

How am I supposed to decide whether to shoot or not in the instant that I have to make the decision?

Admittedly, the wrong address scenario is reasonably improbable. But, there is a much more probable scenario. Let's say tonight my home is invaded. With this discussion on my mind, I hesitate, I try to give the invaders the benefit of the doubt. But it's not LEOs with the wrong addess, it's the real deal and my hesitation results in the unthinkable.

YOU'RE the expert--YOU tell me what to do. Should I resist? Or should I offer no resistance and hope for the best? It sounds like you're hinting that no resistance is the best option--which it is--FOR YOU! What about for me? What's the best option for me given that it's much more likely that I'll be facing criminals, not LEOs?
 
Last edited:
I don't think the majority of "your boys" like kicking in any doors. Nor are they rambo types. They have a difficult job and do a pretty good job at it. That was never the arguement. The point of contention was that if a no-knock warrant was ever done against a typical highroader/falfiler/AR15.com member. It would be a very unfortunate no win situation. The outcome would most likely be a bunch of children being made orphans.

I don't think people actually said they would win out against a trained team of swat officers. The majority of members here have no illusions of holding off the entire army with a 10/22 and a swiss army knife. However I do think that a well armed person who knows his terrain and with somewhat talent at firearms/tactics, can make it "costly" to any advancing team of swat guys. Even swat teams are not invincible. Their body armor will not stop all rounds, and believe it or not, a well place round (whether or not it is a 22 or 50 bmg) will drop one of your guys as it will us.

Do you think if every time a swat team went out with one member not coming back, swat membership would be so coveted? You may not like to admit it, but you are vulnerable. Body armor or not.

Just a parting point. Remember what happened to the FBI guys at Waco. Got their butts handed back to them by the Davidians in the initial firefights.
 
GSMD Fan:
Something else to consider: some folks, if they were terrorized or lost a family member to a "wrong address" SWAT raid gone bad would not merely write letters to the editor, or file civil suits.

It can be a long walk across the parking lot at Target. Nobody lives in black kevlar 24/7.
 
Their body armor will not stop all rounds, and believe it or not, a well place round (whether or not it is a 22 or 50 bmg) will drop one of your guys as it will us.
Click to expand...

Who's "your guys" and "us".:confused:

Fella behind the mask is just another citizen trying his best to do his job right and go home to his family, just like the guys driving the bread truck or checking out folks at the grocery register. Yeah on a rare occasion a bread truck has an accident and kills a pedistrian, if so the driver should be punished but you rarely hear folks telling the wonder bread guys to watch there backs in parking lots...

I'm against the ninja mask and such myself but behind the bull of (fire/identity protection) the idea was to project a fearsome image that would cause bad guys to give up so everybody gets out of a bad situation safely without a shot fired.

Sometimes I think though that strategy has worked too little on the bad guys, and too much on folks who would normally be genereally supportive of law enforcement.
 
Fella behind the mask is just another citizen trying his best to do his job ... you rarely hear folks telling the wonder bread guys to watch there backs in parking lots
Click to expand...
Agree that was a bit over the top. I'm really hoping he was just making an observation or a comment about human nature.

But the analogy is a bit weak--wonder bread guys don't break into people's houses and (taser them /rough them up/cuff them/shoot them) by mistake.
 
Who's "your guys" and "us".

Sorry.... for the sake of this discussion "your guys" is the LEO/swat and "us" is the average Joe Blow.

The entire discussion was about how a Swat team effected a no-knock to the wrong address. It then progressed to how if a swat effected a no-knock in the middle of the night to your average gun freak, the outcome would be either a dead citizen, dead swat guy or both. No one wins in this situation (especially if it was a wrong address as the taxpayers will very likely end up flipping the bill for a wrongful death suit). Then it just went down hill from there.

And the watch your back comment was a little risky, but to tell you the truth, it is true. There is no way to gauge how an individual who had lost his family to a wrongful death would react. Human nature is just plain unpredictable. Look at what happens when people get fired from their jobs now a days, they come back looking to wipe out all those the "wronged" them.
 
John, I think it's a fitting anology or should be. Wonder Bread truck driver can run over your child on the highway- they should not of course- but seeing how many wonder bread trucks are on the road at any one time it's gonna happen eventually to somebody. Running over someone accidentally while in the preformance of your job is just as bad as tasering the wrong guy by mistake IMHO. SWAT teams should not break into the wrong house, but considering the number of raids across the country, gotta figure it's gonna happen again eventually as well. :(

I'm not minimizing this incident, this was a screwup that every human effort should be used to avoid. The people who failed to do this should pay with both jobs and civil liability (not just some official handing out your tax dollars for a settlement). It could have been WAY more trajic than it was.

Hard problem to deal with using this method of entry or not. My father was friends with a Patrolman in the 70's who believed in the "just knock on the door, be polite approach" till he knocked one day and got a 12 gauge slug thru his belly for the trouble. I think most would agree this type of entry is at least sometimes needed, but should be planned and executed as carefully as humanly possible.

However talking about "us" versus "them", head shots, police looking around over their shoulders in parking lots??? It's a little much for me over this deal. Most of those guys in the scary mask are decent folks just trying to do the best job they can with the information they have at the time, just like the rest of us are doing on our jobs everyday.
 
Agree that was a bit over the top. I'm really hoping he was just making an observation or a comment about human nature.

But the analogy is a bit weak--wonder bread guys don't break into people's houses and (taser them /rough them up/cuff them/shoot them) by mistake.
Click to expand...

SOME cops seem to have this childish belief that THEY'RE the only people who take the fall when they do something wrong and everyone else gets off scott free.

Reminds me of this thread:

http://www.glocktalk.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=184529

I'm Coffindodger! btw.
 
Oh, apparently the thread was just closed as I posted that. We can't have any intelligent debate in "Cop Talk" over on Glocktalk now can we???

That place is a joke.
 
It all comes down to perception. The good guy homeowner doesn't expect a SWAT team to force their way into his home because he's a good guy homeowner. The SWAT team OTOH figures anyone in the house their raiding is a potential bad guy because it's a no-knock raid, they have a warrant. While neither side is considering that SWAT may be raiding the wrong house, both sides could end up shooting a good guy -- nobody wins.

I found this Drug Warriors link doing a google search on a botched San Diego raid back in '92-'93. Personally I'm all for LE doing what they can to halt the drug trade, but botched raids do more harm than good. They squander valuable resources and destroy trust of LE. The San Diego business executive, Donald Carlson referred to in the link actually shot a SD Deputy during the raid on his home. He was also shot but both parties lived. Another bad informant.

I'm sure LE has procedures in place to eliminate raids at the wrong house or even on the right house (where nothing illegal is taking place) as in the Carlson situation. But bad raids continue. Carlson happened over 10 years ago and here we are, more of the same. LE needs to seriously beef up their non-informant intelligence prior to conducting a raid. Someone on the entry team needs to have seen the place first-hand prior to the raid so that he knows where the correct house is and he knows that bad guys live there. Relying on a back of the envelope map drawn by a trailer park manager isn't my idea of good intel. Relying on the word of an informant even DEA doesn't trust (Carlson case) isn't my idea of good intel. OOPS doesn't cut it.

edit: another LINK
It would be more than a year before I would learn that the U.S.
government in the person of San Diego U.S. Attorney Allan Bersin, had
decided to settle with Mr. Carlson, avoiding a trial and the public
revelations of my reports. Mr. Carlson's attorney made a public
statement that by settling without a trial the misdeeds of the
government were being covered up. The government paid Mr. Carlson 2.75
million. Part of the final agreement was that the government's reports
of its own actions, be classified.

The U.S. Attorney of San Diego, made a public statement exonerating the
agents and prosecutors of all wrongdoing. He said that "the system"
failed Mr. Carlson, but that the agents and prosecutors were to be
commended for having done their jobs.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
My only reponse is that you guys better just get the right address.
 
It's not a pro-LEO or an anti-LEO thing. It's a door to my castle being breached by invaders thang! As far as "our" team being better than "your" team, all I can venture is that there would probably be more grieving families than a visit to a nonshooters home. That in itself is sad enough for me to just leave it there. Let's try working together in our communities to remove the cause for the perceived need of these type warrants. Sorry guys, waxing unrealistically a bit this a.m. It all just strikes me as such a waste. Have no fear, I'll snap back to my cynical self soon.
 
considering the number of raids across the country, gotta figure it's gonna happen again eventually as well.
Click to expand...
And therein lies the problem ... too many raids.

It is unfortunate that these threads can get so "uncivil" - I have tried to always be civil even when violently [edit: poor word choice, should have said "vehemently"] disagreeing with someone. I apologize if anyone thinks I have ever crossed the line.

My problem is not with the LE individuals taking part in these raids (well, most of them, anyway) but rather with the whole strategy of using "no-knock" raids for routine arrests and drug raids.

The first I ever heard of this was back in the 70s (I think) when the argument was that drugs would flushed down the toliet by the time police gained entry via a normal knock and display warrant. Oh yeah, that sounds reasonable if you think the War on (people using) Drugs is a good thing (which I did, back then) but really, if your whole case hinges on finding a few ounces of dope, then you don't need to be doing dynamic entry to begin with.

Sure, a LEO may get shot serving a warrant to someone's door, just as one may get shot during a routine traffic stop. So ... should all traffic stops now become "felony stops" ...?

Sooner or later (or maybe already?) a SWAT type officer is going to get killed (possibly justifiably) when doing a dynamic entry. Is that individual less dead than the one that died knocking on a door?

I don't want any LEO to get shot or killed. I do want dangerous criminals to be locked up so that they can't hurt anyone else.

But when an honest citizen hears his or her door being broken down in the middle of the night, and has to wonder whether this is a band of raping criminals or a helmeted SWAT team, then there is something terribly wrong with our society and the policies we employ to try to protect it.
 
I've held back on posting on any of the threads concerning NO-KNOCK home invasions.
But I think I can make these comments now.


There are no grounds for any no knock raid, on any house, for any reason,
~except~ a hostage situation where the hostage is at risk of iminent death.
There are just to many tactics that can be employed to capture criminals, or identify unsuspecting law abiding citizens in warrent situations.

The no-knock, night time raid is simply an instrument of terror.

The ski masks worn by SWAT team members are also an instrument of terror, and I consider ANY LEO that wears one to be a criminal.

The use of military uniforms by civilian LEO's is unjustifiable, and is also an instrument used to terrify people.

Civilian LEO's have no justifiable NEED for selective fire weapons of any kind.

The use of night time surprise no-knock raids, combined with ski masks,
black military uniforms, selective fire weapons, flash bangs, screaming, yelling, and brutality serves only one purpose. To create terror in a population that has lost it's respect for the various police departments.
~If they don't respect us, let them fear us.~

If I offend any civilian police officers on this forum, too bad. By condoning this style of government sanctioned criminal activity, you deserve my disrespect.
 
Civilian LEO's have no justifiable NEED for selective fire weapons of any kind.
Click to expand...

I'd tend to agree with that statement with the exception of Border Patrol officers who have on occasion needed heavy fire power to escape from the fully decked out Mexican Army units. Special problem,special solutions. Using "special" solutions for everyday problems is a disaster in the making.

As a Parole officer I'm kinda in that vauge "sort of" LEO category but 95% of the time tend to side with them. I know guys who do wear mask and to this point at least everyone of them I've met has been a more than decent sort most members here would enjoy the company of. Individual experiecnes can lead to broad assumptions on both sides of the issue.
 
Most of those guys in the scary mask are decent folks just trying to do the best job they can with the information they have at the time, just like the rest of us are doing on our jobs everyday.
Click to expand...
Take off the masks. That would be a start. True undercover LEO's don't need to be doing raids. There is no justifiable excuse If you're wearing a mask to conceal your identity, especially when invading a home, you are to be presumed to be a bad guy. :fire:
 
Anybody trying to come in to my house at anytime with a mask on is considered a bad guy. I will shoot to kill. No questions asked. PERIOD.
 
There are no grounds for any no knock raid, on any house, for any reason,
~except~ a hostage situation where the hostage is at risk of iminent death.
There are just to many tactics that can be employed to capture criminals, or identify unsuspecting law abiding citizens in warrent situations.

The no-knock, night time raid is simply an instrument of terror.

The ski masks worn by SWAT team members are also an instrument of terror, and I consider ANY LEO that wears one to be a criminal.

The use of military uniforms by civilian LEO's is unjustifiable, and is also an instrument used to terrify people.

Civilian LEO's have no justifiable NEED for selective fire weapons of any kind.

The use of night time surprise no-knock raids, combined with ski masks,
black military uniforms, selective fire weapons, flash bangs, screaming, yelling, and brutality serves only one purpose. To create terror in a population that has lost it's respect for the various police departments.
~If they don't respect us, let them fear us.~

If I offend any civilian police officers on this forum, too bad. By condoning this style of government sanctioned criminal activity, you deserve my disrespect.
Click to expand...


Amen, J Miller.


BAck up from the situation for a moment and try to consider this in the light of history. Does anyone seriously think the Founding Fathers would have approved of civilian police using such terror tactics? And he's right - they are terror tactics.


I'm adamantly opposed to legalizing drugs. But I'm even more opposed to letting America become a police state.

But it is. Mostly due to the blind LAW AND ORDER types.
 
I can envision a wrong address raid happening at a home where the owner has given some thought to defending against a home invasion robbery. By being prepared and having some warning, he cleans clock and the county coroner is extremely busy.

The homeowner survives and is terribly distressed that he made a mistake, just as the officers hit the wrong address in error. At his trial for murder he maintains over and over he thought he was being robbed. The night before his defense attorney asks for a summary dismissal of charges prior to the case going to the jury for deliberation, a small group of ex special operators hits the judge's house at the same time the officers hit the defendant's house. The same tactics are used and the judge is left trussed up like a Christmas turkey. Then the group leaves. A phone call to the local police department tells them to go rescue the judge. Any bets on how the judge will rule on the motion for dismissal?

Pilgrim
 
I can't speak for others, but if I hear someone breaking into my home, I will assume they are criminals, are a threat and will only stop when I stop them.
If they claim to be police, I need to see some real ID, not a shirt that anyone can buy. I need something like a drivers license, badge, warrent and a name at the local cop shop I can call for verification.
If I see a mask, I'm looking at a criminal and a coward until proven otherwise.
I beleive that if every time LE hits the wrong house, the entire entry team and chain of command were to be swiftly executed, there might be a lot more thought given to getting the right address.
But that's just me...and maybe a few million others.

Edited because my fingers seem to keep getting the key next to the right one.
 
Blueduck,

To make the analogy correct, a wonder bread truck driver's job would be running over "criminals" with a truck driver accidentally running over a "non-criminal" by mistake now and then.

Your analogy makes it sound like breaking into houses is generally a good thing, like delivering bread or checking groceries, and it's only bad when you break into the wrong house by mistake.

What you're not getting is that the act of breaking into a house which may contain people who have not been convicted of any crime is NOT a good thing. It's not like delivering bread or checking groceries, it is, in fact, a BAD thing. BY LAW, all of those people, are innocent (until PROVEN guilty in COURT--remember?) and are entitled to defend themselves and their homes with deadly force if they feel threatened. Even someone with an assault warrant against him is entitled to defend himself and his family from a home invasion. That means that even in the case when the right house is raided, the occupants can legally defend with deadly force (unless they realize it's the cops coming in) and the LEOs by law can legally come in pointing guns.

The ONLY time two people should be able to legally engage each other with weapons (i.e. neither one breaking any law) is in war.

So, I repeat: Your analogy is weak. Raiding houses is not a job like delivering bread or checking groceries. It is, in a very real sense, creating a tiny war zone on the scene of each raid. And that, my friend, is VERY screwed up. That's true even if the right house is targeted. When the wrong house is targeted, it goes beyond being merely screwed up and is absolutely criminal.
 
Defending your home from ninja's is legal. Here's an example.

State v. Housley, 322 N.W.2d 746 (Minn.,1982).
Defendant, awakened from an afternoon nap, who shot plainclothes police officer after officers gained dynamic entry into defendant's home in attempt to execute search warrant, was convicted before the District Court, Hennepin County of first-degree assault, and he appealed. The Supreme Court held that evidence failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant's fear of great bodily harm had been unreasonable. REVERSED.

After a conviction below for which the trial judge sentenced the defendent to the minimum sentence (the judge lacking the moral and intellectual courage to grant a directed verdict or NOV), the Minnesota Supreme Court decided, as a matter of law that defendent's response to a botched warrent service by firing at the "intruders" was an act of self defense and no reasonable jury could have determined otherwise. FWIW, at that time the court had a majority of former prosecutors in its panel.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top