So it goes before a grand jury

[ilbob]

Clearly a tragedy and one of the reasons I'm not a big fan of "storm the castle" tactics. Why not just wait outside until the subject leaves the house and then swarm him?

Because a significant reason these kinds of raids are being done has to do with cowing the populace.

 

[EFI]

There's an editorial about this case in today's paper.

Testimony in Ryan Frederick case elevates doubts about fatal Chesapeake raid

The Virginian-Pilot
© May 29, 2008
TWO DETAILS, revealed during a preliminary hearing for the man charged with killing a Chesapeake police detective, were startling acknowledgments that police conducted a drug raid with only flimsy information that marijuana was being grown inside a Portlock home. The testimony by a colleague of Jarrod Shivers, who was fatally shot in the Jan. 17 incident, should concern city residents for these reasons:

Are police investigating sufficiently prior to raiding suspected dope houses? And would Chesapeake residents have acted any differently from the defendant, given the chaotic circumstances that night?

A substitute judge determined Tuesday that a grand jury should weigh first-degree murder and firearms charges against Ryan Frederick, 28. A misdemeanor marijuana possession charge, the reason for the raid, was dismissed. Frederick has said publicly that he fired shots from inside his home, thinking that an intruder was trying to enter. One shot struck and killed Shivers, 34, after police had used a battering ram on the front door.

Police were trying to rid the South Norfolk neighborhood of a potential menace. The police crew that went to Frederick's home, at 932 Redstart Ave., believed he was growing pot in the detached garage.

But the testimony by Detective Kiley Roberts, the sole witness at Tuesday's hearing and an officer on the scene that January night, is troublesome.

First, police placed huge stock in an unnamed "confidential informant," who gave details as early as November that Frederick was dealing drugs. There's no indication that information was supported independently. It's also unclear what motivated the informant to contact police; was the person trying to trade information on unrelated criminal charges? The department has said little about the individual.

Second, though police did surveillance at the home three or four times before the raid, Roberts testified on cross examination, they never noticed any unusual traffic to and from the house - which is sometimes an indication of drug activity. Police did a background check and found that Frederick had a job and no criminal history. And there's been no indication, in search warrants or testimony, that police used one of its own undercover officers to try to buy drugs from Frederick.

Given those facts, why did officers carry out the raid? An internal police probe has been completed, but that report will not be released, police said.

This is not to diminish Shivers' bravery on the night he died in the line of duty. And following the gunshots, Chesapeake police displayed enormous restraint by not rushing the house after one of their officers had been mortally wounded. (A separate .223 bullet casing, which did not come from Frederick's handgun, was recovered from the scene.)

But the tragedy has raised disquieting questions about the police methods of drug investigation; the tremendous show of force in what ultimately turned up a scant amount of marijuana; and why, given the circumstances, Frederick is being charged with first-degree murder instead of a lesser count, such as manslaughter.

The slaying of Detective Shivers appears to be a horrific anomaly. In 2007, Chesapeake police executed 50 narcotics warrants, leading to 72 arrests, numerous drugs recovered and weapons and property seized. Certainly, the department had conducted dozens of successful raids.

But one officer is dead, and one citizen faces a murder charge. This week's court proceeding suggests that, perhaps, police should never have raided that home on Redstart Avenue.

Just MHO: the CI needs to be charged with felony murder for "SWATTING" Ryan Frederick, resulting in the death of Detective Shivers.

 

[Thernlund]

Second, though police did surveillance at the home three or four times before the raid, Roberts testified on cross examination, they never noticed any unusual traffic to and from the house - which is sometimes an indication of drug activity. Police did a background check and found that Frederick had a job and no criminal history. And there's been no indication, in search warrants or testimony, that police used one of its own undercover officers to try to buy drugs from Frederick.

There was absolutely no need for a raid. Period. This was excessive at best. They should have just served the warrant in the middle of the day in a casual business-as-usual manner. No raid of any kind was warranted.

(A separate .223 bullet casing, which did not come from Frederick's handgun, was recovered from the scene.)

I'd like to hear more about that. Was it from an officer? Was it Frederick's (from a prior range trip)?

Just MHO: the CI needs to be charged with felony murder for "SWATTING" Ryan Frederick, resulting in the death of Detective Shivers.

Damn straight.


-T.

 

[Blackfork]

The Original Idea:

Remember: The original idea was for people to be able to live in peace and safety, minding their own business, making their own choices about their lives and activities and being secure from the government in their homes.

 

[ilcylic]

A little bit of weed sure wasn't worth Officer Shivers' life.

10 tons of weed wouldn't have been worth Officer Shiver's life.

How many more cops and little old ladies need to die before we stop ruining people's lives for growing a plant?

 

[Ash]

Hmmm,

What about a stolen car? Stolen cash? A hit and run without fatalities? Stolen TV? Pirated DVD's? Child Porn?

Ash

 

[ARTiger]

So shooting someone banging on your door (albeit with a battering ram) when you cannot see who it is or judge their threat to yourself is to be considered justifiable self defense?

Perhaps so, in many states, but you'd better be right. The police are going to say that they repeatedly and loudly announced themselves as police. The defendant is going to say that all he heard was someone breaking down his door. That's winnable by either side depending on the jury.

Felony for simultaneous possession of drugs and firearms is becoming common everywhere. Voided however, I believe in this case, by the failure of evidence to support the original warrant which SHOULD void anything exculpatory found in it's execution.

So let's see, police can break open anyone's door without warning anytime they please based on something so shaky as a call to a "crime stoppers" tip line? Yep folks - they can and do. Constitutional? Our Supreme Court says it is. Peverted liberty as intended in our constitution - abseloutely.

 

[sanglant]

If you don't even know who you're shooting at your "reasonable" just disappeared.

yeah, if your mugged check there papers before shooting

 

[RP88]

I hope that, if Frederick was not in fact a dealer of any sort, that he is not charged with anything, and that he sues the state for a couple million dollars successfully.

 

[Chris Rhines]

Several witnesses (neighbors of the victim) stated during interviews that they never heard the police announce themselves.

The police have stated that Frederick was the only person on the scene who fired a weapon. If that is true, I'd really like to know where that .223 casing came from.

- Chris

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

hard to sue commonwealth

 

[JohnKSa]

Not if you live anywhere in this country it isn't. The standard for lethal force is "reasonable fear of imminent death or serious bodily harm"

If you don't even know who you're shooting at your "reasonable" just disappeared.

First of all, you cobbled together the "quote" you responded to by cutting out the modified statement which I inserted between the two sentences and to which my comment about legality was directed.

Second, you clearly don't know much about the "Castle Doctrine" which is now part of the deadly force laws of most states. Ample information is available online, you can educate yourself if you wish.

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

ah yes the law in texas as it applies in va you should let his defense team in on that it might help

 

[JohnKSa]

The majority of states have some form of Castle Doctrine, not just TX.

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

va is actually pretty shoot friendly but not friendly enough for this guy i fear.don't shoot what you can't see

 

[RP88]

does VA even have a castle doctrine OR a duty-to-retreat doctrine? I havent heard of either, which is sad since I live in Virginia. And yea, we are pretty shoot-friendly until the guy you shoot turns out to be a police officer, as would be anywhere.

 

[Thernlund]

VA isn't a Castle Doctrine state.


-T.

 

[RP88]

so I take that the good ol' DTR clause applies for the most part, then. Considering that he shot through his door before actually identifying a threat (and because he approached the door instead of backing into another part of the house), I'd say that self-defense plea isnt going to get Mr. Frederick very far.

 

[Ash]

And he didn't look out a window to see who had showed up? I have no energy to defend this guy.

Ash

 

[MASTEROFMALICE]

It will come out in trial, but he already told the police why he started shooting.

When it comes out, everyone speaking up on his behalf will all shut up at the same time.

 

[Chris Rhines]

Frederick's defense will probably center on his claim that Shivers had already smashed through one of the door panels and was in the process of entering. If this is what happened, I can't see how his claim of self-defense could be invalidated.

If Frederick looked out the window, what could he expect to see? A big illuminated sign saying, "Police Raid in Progress! Come out with your hands up"?

The PD statements contain at least two major inconsistencies, but what is clear is that, if they did bother to announce, no more than 20 seconds elapsed between the knock and the door coming down. And some of you people expect Frederick to wake up from a sound sleep, orient himself, move to a window, correctly identify the threat, and make a correct no-shoot decision in the face of a violent dynamic entry, all in twenty seconds?

I always have the energy to defend the clearly blameless.

- Chris

 

[MASTEROFMALICE]

Frederick's defense will probably center on his claim that Shivers had already smashed through one of the door panels and was in the process of entering. If this is what happened, I can't see how his claim of self-defense could be invalidated.

Easy, Shivers wasn't the one breaching the door. The breacher was standing off to the side. Frederick shot a cop who wasn't entering his house. So there goes that argument. In fact, since he didn't shoot the man breaching, his idiotic actions could have killed anyone outside. It just happened to be another cop.

And some of you people expect Frederick to wake up from a sound sleep, orient himself, move to a window, correctly identify the threat, and make a correct no-shoot decision in the face of a violent dynamic entry, all in twenty seconds?

This whole "dead-sleep" argument is getting old in a hurry.

It was 8:00 P.M. and Frederick was watching TV on the other side of the door.

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

oh great now you wanna interject facts and spoil a whole bunch of well imagined fantasies kill joy!

 

[#shooter]

believed he was growing pot in the detached garage

Could the police not search a DETACHED garage for a pot growing operation without entering the home to verify the informant’s story? How hard could that be? They had the home under surveillance,why couldn’t they get a warrant and some bolt cutters or some lock pick tools to open a detached garage after he left the home? There is an easy way and the hard way, it seems these police choose the hard way.
As far as this whole business of shooting through doors and he didn’t shoot the breacher does not matter. The breacher could have been at the same place as Shiver as he was there to protect the breacher which he did. Most reports of home invasions that I have read about would say it was a justified shooting if it were a couple of burglars breaking down a door and were shot at without the benefit of a perfect sight picture.

 

[mbt2001]

I find it laughable that the police are conducting Paramilitary raids in suburbia on "suspected" drug dealers, when 1.) 80% of all the drugs in this Country comes from Mexico and 2.) The FBI spends MONTHS building cases against "suspected" mobsters...

So let me get this right, John Gotti, we leave alone until he admits something on a wire. Mexican drug runners we leave alone... Suburban home owner, the best way to disqualify or qualify them as suspects is to beat down the door and hold them at gun point...

I will remind some folks here of the following:

1.) A lot of innocent people have been terrorized by the Paramilitary tactics
2.) Robbers and Murders use similar tactics. Sometimes they even disguise themselves to look like police, power company or what have you.

I am just shaking my head. This Militirization of the police has got to stop. It will lead to civic unrest, as more and more people see the growing rift between US and THEM and mentality that it is creating. The current situation is broken. It needs to be fixed, not have a band-aid put on it.