S.W.A.T. Has its day in court

NIGHTWATCH · Nov 16, 2003

Maybe you should knock

http://www.thestarpress.com/articles/7/009274-7737-004.html

Nightfall · Nov 16, 2003

At the time, police officials acknowledged that the team generally waits about 5 seconds before breaking down a door...

What is the point of knocking with only 5 seconds of wait time? I don't know of very many people who immediately rush to the door in under 5 seconds when they hear a knock.

At the end of testimony Thursday, the jury was shown a video of Cox being shot. In the video, SWAT team members can be seen on a well-lit porch trying to open up doors before knocking.

Ah, here we go. If you see a group of masked, armed men trying to open your door without announcing who they are first, what exactly are you going to do? Get on your knees, and hope that the masked, armed men are police officers?

HankB · Nov 16, 2003

. . . SWAT team members can be seen on a well-lit porch trying to open up doors before knocking.

"Well lit porch" implies it was at night.

If they were dressed in black BDUs, wearing masks to hide their identity, carrying guns (possibly suppressed assassination weapons) and trying to force their way in at night without presenting a valid warrant and announcing themselves, well, it's simple to see why the occupant of the home figured it was a criminal home invasion . . . and that's because it was.

SWAT team members explained that the doors were storm doors and didn't lead to the inside of the home.

Uh . . . storm doors DO lead inside - they're part of a typical "double door" entry.

jimpeel · Nov 16, 2003

All I can say is that she is damned lucky to be alive to have a trial. Too many times, no-knocks end up with someone being killed.

HABU · Nov 16, 2003

All I can say is that she is damned lucky to be alive to have a trial. Too many times, no-knocks end up with someone being killed.

jimpeel stole my thunder. How is it she didn't get stitched with a bunch of 10mm across the torso?

JBT's :cuss:

MagKnightX · Nov 16, 2003

This is why I think that SWAT teams and such don't care about the average peon. Wasn't there some case where they did a no-knock, burst in, the homeowner came up with a gun because he thought they were burglars, got shot and died, and it turned out the SWAT guys had the wrong address and wrong guy?

XenaduKhan · Nov 16, 2003

Which of the many cases are you thinking of? There are quite a few SWAT deaths and/or homeowner deaths due to these "raids".

jimpeel · Nov 17, 2003

dustind · Nov 17, 2003

In court Thursday, three SWAT team members testified that they didn't remember a time when someone actually answered the door.

Those bastards. :fire:

hammer4nc · Nov 17, 2003

Update: Mistrial declared; hung jury.

link: http://www.thestarpress.com/articles/6/009317-4976-004.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jury hung in Police shooting case

MUNCIE - A Delaware County jury couldn't decide whether a Muncie woman accused of a shooting a city police SWAT team member acted in self-defense or not.

After five hours of deliberation late Friday, Delaware Circuit Court 3 Judge Robert Barnet Jr. declared the jury hung and dismissed them.

Prosecutors said the jury was split 7 to 5 in favor of a guilty verdict.

The jury was to decide the fate of Jillian D. King, 30, who was charged with criminal recklessness resulting in injury in connection with the Jan. 14 wounding of Muncie police officer Steve Cox.

Cox was one of 11 SWAT team members about to raid King's boyfriend's home when she allegedly fired shots out of a window. Cox has since recovered.

King's attorney, Michael J. "Mick" Alexander, argued during the three-day trial that his client was acting in self-defense and didn't know that the people coming to her door were police officers.

Most of King's defense focused on SWAT team tactics and procedures. Alexander challenged whether the SWAT team knocks, announces and waits before storming a home.

Under Indiana law, officers must follow that procedure except in certain circumstances.

On Friday, a videotape of King being interrogated moments after the shooting was shown to the jury.

King kept insisting to detectives that she didn't know that two people she saw outside wearing camouflage and black masks were police officers. She said she thought they were would-be burglars.

"They never said they were the police," King said in her videotaped statement. "If I knew they were the police, I would have opened the door."

In the videotape, detectives told her that the SWAT team didn't need to knock and announce.

"The law doesn't say you have to," Muncie Police Investigator Jeff Lacy said while questioning King on video tape. "They are going to sneak in."

During the trial, Lacy testified that he had lied to King in the videotape as an interrogation tactic.

On Friday, King testified that she fired the shots as a "warning" to whoever was outside. Crying during most of her testimony, King told attorneys that she was afraid that the people outside were going to kill her and her three-year-old son.

Earlier in the trial, a videotape of the shooting was shown to the jury. In the tape officers are seen opening outer doors before shots are fired. One officer is seen getting ready to use a door ram before knocking.

State law requires police to knock, announce and wait before opening any door while serving a search warrant.

During closing arguments, Alexander compared the SWAT team to the military and said they didn't follow the law and his client was defending herself against an unlawful entry.

"Who created the circumstances that led to this problem? They did because they didn't follow the law," Alexander said. "They were in fact breaking into her house."

Prosecutors argued that King could have done several other things - including placing a call to 911 - besides grabbing a gun and shooting it "blindly" out a window.

"Frankly, folks, she has an itchy trigger finger," Deputy Prosecutor Mark McKinney said.

After the jury was declared hung, McKinney said he was prepared to try the case again.

Alexander praised the SWAT team, calling Cox a brave man, but still questioned city police department's SWAT polices.

"There were a lot of issues that came out in this trial that should be important to the public," Alexander said. "But this isn't the vehicle for it. [McKinney] will probably try this again. But he might find that it gets tougher."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Comment: Between ever increasing payouts in civil trials, and injuries to SWAT team members (as in this case), is it possible that use of dynamic entries will be revisited? Hard to say, but we have seen how some members of the LE community will defend the use of this tactic come hell or high water!

dustind · Nov 17, 2003

Alexander praised the SWAT team, calling Cox a brave man, but still questioned city police department's SWAT polices.

He bravely tried to break into a women's home at night with several swat emembers, bravo for his courage.

Prosecutors argued that King could have done several other things - including placing a call to 911 - besides grabbing a gun and shooting it "blindly" out a window.

I am just be preaching to the choir on this one but oh-well. She knew they would be inside her home in seconds, how could 911 have helped her?

Ryder · Nov 17, 2003

They seem to have misplaced the reason for the raid in these articles. Maybe even in the trial? Must not have been very important. Hard for me to imagine being charged with criminal anything in my own home. The reason for the raid might aid one's vision in that regard but then again it is only a suspicion without a conviction.

She shook her head several times during officer testimony? Ya know, if the trials weren't always such ancient history the officers could remember better what really happened. BTDT.

rock jock · Nov 18, 2003

"Frankly, folks, she has an itchy trigger finger," Deputy Prosecutor Mark McKinney said.

What an arrogant POS.

Sergeant Bob · Nov 18, 2003

Prosecutors argued that King could have done several other things - including placing a call to 911 - besides grabbing a gun and shooting it "blindly" out a window.

So who would have responded? The SWAT team? What an imbecile!!!

c_yeager · Nov 18, 2003

suppressed assassination weapons

This sounds so much like a bradyized phrase that it almost makes me giggle. Did they didnt have "high powered assault pistols" too?

hammer4nc · Nov 18, 2003

Ryder raises an interesting point...the reason for the raid. Not surprisingly, it involved drug dealing. :uhoh:

However, other news articles said that the target of the raid (Ms. King's boyfriend, whose house was raided), had been arrested earlier, was already in custody when the raid took place!

Another interesting aspect. Apparently the raid was recorded on videotape...I've not found if the source of the video was an "official" version, news cameraman, or some other source. Regardless, the existence of video evidence helped refute the pre-scripted police accounts of what actually went down (i.e., everything carried out according to police procedure, as if).

Who can forget the Scott Woodring raid in Michigan (discussed extensively last July). Police falsely announced in their news briefing, that a "percussion round" was inserted into the home. Only when news video showed the roof being lifted, and a fireball shooting out the front door, did police reluctantly admit the percussion round was actually 6 lbs. of mining explosives!

In a civil trial now underway (John Hirko, PA), it was mentioned that police training now includes techniques, for protecting officers from civil liability following an officer involved shooting. In that case, the shooter sought legal counsel before making a statement, or even filing his report! Some LEO's on this board chimed in, that was proper and to be expected!

The only reason I bring it up is that video accounts of these raids often prove difficult for police. What's next, will standard SWAT training include one member of the raid team assigned to seek out and destroy any possible video evidence of the incident? :uhoh:

No, that would be wrong.

Don Galt · Nov 18, 2003

If this were a just system, the prosecutors would have filed charges against the police, not this woman.

But then, if this were a just system, we wouldn't have armed thugs, serving illegal warrents illegally in the dead of night, in pursuit of a crime that is unconstitutional in the first place.

As far as I'm concerned, that woman would have been justified in defending her life and killing every single one of those SOBs.

You want to serve a warrent, you show up in daytime, with your pistol in your holster, knock on the door and inform them you have a warrant, and ask them to vacate the premises. I guarantee you they are going to want to get out of there.

IF you need to, you surround the house.

IF they open fire, or something like that, then use of force is justified.

But the police in this country have been corrupted by the war on drugs to the poiint that hte only difference between them an cops in Mexico running shakedown rackets is that they go after million dollar houses and facny cars instead of a few bucks. Oh, and in Mexico, they usually don't shoot you if you pay the bribe. Here they shoot you and just take your property.

There is no moral diference between the police showing up armed to kill a homeowner and siezed their property than a criminal doing the same thing. NONE.

Especially when the alledged crime is "Drugs". A non-crime if there ever was one.

MagKnightX · Nov 18, 2003

jimpeel, sounds about right.

S.W.A.T. Has its day in court

NIGHTWATCH

Member

Nightfall

Member

HankB

Member

jimpeel

Member

HABU

Member

MagKnightX

Member

XenaduKhan

Member

jimpeel

Member

dustind

Member

hammer4nc

Member.

dustind

Member

Ryder

Member

rock jock

Member

Sergeant Bob

Member

c_yeager

Member

hammer4nc

Member.

Don Galt

member

MagKnightX

Member

Similar threads