It had to happen eventually: bust down the wrong door, receive lead injection
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/09/2...ed-warrant-to-wrong-apartment-police-say.html
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/09/2...ed-warrant-to-wrong-apartment-police-say.html
- Thread starter 308pirate
- Start date
Everyone involved, especially the home owner is lucky to be alive. Sucks for all those involved.
Actually fucking shocked to hear that..usually they roll out the full swat team.... murder the guy....then after the fact admit they had the wrong house but still blame the home owner for trying to defend himself.
I'de call it a happy ending that no one was killed.
In my view, police have an absolute responsibility to be sure that they are serving the correct address, yet none of us are perfect. Just last year one of the digits fell off my mail box, theoretically until I replaced it my home could have been mistaken for a different address.
I would gladly surrender to police entering my home by mistake, and sue them in court later, I'm not sure how you would really know that they are police. After all criminals sometimes pretend to be police so even shouting that they were the police ps something that a home invader would do. Further in the news I only read about two or three cases of the police mistakenly entering the wrong residence per year vs hundreds of Home invasions. When there are only fractions of a second to make up my mind, and the odds are a hundred to one that it is a home invader hollering police......
In my view, police have an absolute responsibility to be sure that they are serving the correct address, yet none of us are perfect. Just last year one of the digits fell off my mail box, theoretically until I replaced it my home could have been mistaken for a different address.
I would gladly surrender to police entering my home by mistake, and sue them in court later, I'm not sure how you would really know that they are police. After all criminals sometimes pretend to be police so even shouting that they were the police ps something that a home invader would do. Further in the news I only read about two or three cases of the police mistakenly entering the wrong residence per year vs hundreds of Home invasions. When there are only fractions of a second to make up my mind, and the odds are a hundred to one that it is a home invader hollering police......
You don't have to go that far to find honest police doing their job as best they can. They just don't usually make the news.
That's a bitch of a problem, isn't it?
But like you, I'm going to bet it's not the police breaking my door down.
If they are hollering police, and my family is in the back of the house...Then my plan is to shout back "ARMED HOMEOWNER ON THE PHONE TO 911---DO NOT ATTEMPT FURTHER ENTRY UNTIL 911 CONFIRMS THAT YOU ARE POLICE. IF YOU CONTINUE NOW YOU WILL BE SHOT." My wife will be on the phone ASAP.
But if my kids were playing in the rec room in the basement I would have to charge the point of entry....
But if my kids were playing in the rec room in the basement I would have to charge the point of entry....
I can understand where you're going with this but do you really think you'll have time to yell all that before the come through the door? Or that they'll even listen to you?
I wonder what would’ve happened if the guy finished the job. Would they exonerate him just like they exonerate the cops who shoot unarmed people in their own house?
Pretty sure all that would do is hurt their egos and they would flashbang and gun you down.
Considering the cluster mess of lies to cover up cold blooded murder that just went down in Dallas and the ensuing stonewalling, cover up and attempted character assassination of the victim, I'd be surprised if more people didn't start thinking twice before answering the door. Had the victim either barricaded the door and waited or been the first one to start shooting, he might have lived & at least had a chance to tell his side of the story.
If the police want to show up peacefully at my door in clearly marked cars and uniforms to ask questions or with a proper warrant, I mean them no harm at all, because I hope that there is still a chance I can get redress in court for the wrong they do and possibly find out who was behind a lying warrant and get them kicked out of their jobs. Unfortunately these days it seems less likely that the police will show up peaceably and ask you to comply.
I'm way more concerned about having an accidental encounter with overly eager trigger happy police at my house than I am about criminals and I suspect I'm not the only one. Criminals I have a clear plan for and can mostly handle if I'm home. But police that kick in your door first and start talking after they are already shooting is a whole different matter and I really don't want to be stuck in a no win situation with people who are supposed to be the "good guys". This is why I specifically want to end the "war on drugs", I don't care as much if addicts choose kill themselves... but I do care if the police get the wrong address from an "Informant" who is trying to cut a deal & bust in my door & try to kill me to "save people from themselves".
If the police want to show up peacefully at my door in clearly marked cars and uniforms to ask questions or with a proper warrant, I mean them no harm at all, because I hope that there is still a chance I can get redress in court for the wrong they do and possibly find out who was behind a lying warrant and get them kicked out of their jobs. Unfortunately these days it seems less likely that the police will show up peaceably and ask you to comply.
I'm way more concerned about having an accidental encounter with overly eager trigger happy police at my house than I am about criminals and I suspect I'm not the only one. Criminals I have a clear plan for and can mostly handle if I'm home. But police that kick in your door first and start talking after they are already shooting is a whole different matter and I really don't want to be stuck in a no win situation with people who are supposed to be the "good guys". This is why I specifically want to end the "war on drugs", I don't care as much if addicts choose kill themselves... but I do care if the police get the wrong address from an "Informant" who is trying to cut a deal & bust in my door & try to kill me to "save people from themselves".
D
Deleted member 113831
Guest
I have served my share of warrants, and I can tell you that the agency in question needs to seriously review thier pre-service intel gathering and briefing procedures.
Our briefs included not just addresses, but ariel photos, exact physical descriptions of the property to be entered, individual primary and secondary positional assignments, exact routes to and from, pre-service rally point, interior layout description from any prior LEO or CI contact, actual photos of the property from street side etc.,
You get this shit happening when departments get lazy or are poorly trained to begin with.
Our briefs included not just addresses, but ariel photos, exact physical descriptions of the property to be entered, individual primary and secondary positional assignments, exact routes to and from, pre-service rally point, interior layout description from any prior LEO or CI contact, actual photos of the property from street side etc.,
You get this shit happening when departments get lazy or are poorly trained to begin with.
D
Deleted member 113831
Guest
By the way, let's please not turn this into a cop hater thread.
Lot's of us here, trying just to keep people safe and do our job and not step on the constitution and make it home to our wife and kids everyday.
Lot's of us here, trying just to keep people safe and do our job and not step on the constitution and make it home to our wife and kids everyday.
Lots of us firmly believe in law and order and have no problems with the police & would be most helpful to them if asked or cooperative if required.
We still sometimes worry about what would happen if everything goes bad.. the worst case being when two "good" parties find themselves in a deadly situation because of something somebody else decided when the same two parties could have been civil, helpful & even friendly given a different approach to a situation.
It sounds pretty much that nightmare scenario is exactly what happened in that article. Fortunately they were all bad shots and were also all level headed, and both parties did their best to de-escalate the situation as soon as they realized they were both "good" guys.
The police department sounds very honest, which helps a lot.
its the no knock warrants that are the problem. i agree extra attention is requied when serving warrants. there should be zero ambiguity.
I am sorry, if the police use a number on the outside of the home or mailbox as final verification of an address I think there are bigger issues to be worried about.
The homeowner and his daughter are lucky people to walk away from this one.
Time to end the no knock warrants.
"After knocking on the door and getting no response, officers used a device to open it."
Banging on your door yelling "police, warrant!" and then using the battering ram immediately following to literally break the door down to bum rush the "suspect" is NOT knocking.
It's dangerous and the reasons they claimed they "needed" it back in the 80s are not why they do it today.
Innocent until proven guilty. That's how it works here in the USA. Deal with it. It's law enforcements problem not mine.
"After knocking on the door and getting no response, officers used a device to open it."
Banging on your door yelling "police, warrant!" and then using the battering ram immediately following to literally break the door down to bum rush the "suspect" is NOT knocking.
It's dangerous and the reasons they claimed they "needed" it back in the 80s are not why they do it today.
Innocent until proven guilty. That's how it works here in the USA. Deal with it. It's law enforcements problem not mine.
Sounds about right and most of that could be generated by an administrative assistant in about 1/2 hour.
In my opinion there is no excuse for lazy and if it's corruption at fault, the police deserve to get shot as they come through the door.
i should clarify, no knocks have their place when there is no ambiguity. youve been survelling for weeks. you have absolute confirmation that the suspect)s) are inside and its an issue of national security for exampple. a no knock for a failure to appear is not warranted (pun intended). sometimes the element of surprise is required, but in limited cases only.
D
Deleted member 113831
Guest
So what would be your solution for high risk warrant service? By appointment only?
Perhaps they couldn't afford proper target surveillance, their department's annual budget is only $325M...
This is a case of gross human error and inability of the officers to do their fucking job, Skookum is absolutely correct there. Some heads need to roll over this one and the union better get the fuck out of the way while they do it, as there is zero room for error in situations such as this. I hope every department in the US uses this as a reminder/teaching point of how not to do business.
We did better R&S back in the 90s on MSPF, and I was just a smart ass yet know-nothing Corporal who still didn't hesitate to walk the DAP to the door and tell them "Breach this one" if it wasn't 100% clear to them which door/window/wall section I was talking about in my reports.
This is a case of gross human error and inability of the officers to do their fucking job, Skookum is absolutely correct there. Some heads need to roll over this one and the union better get the fuck out of the way while they do it, as there is zero room for error in situations such as this. I hope every department in the US uses this as a reminder/teaching point of how not to do business.
We did better R&S back in the 90s on MSPF, and I was just a smart ass yet know-nothing Corporal who still didn't hesitate to walk the DAP to the door and tell them "Breach this one" if it wasn't 100% clear to them which door/window/wall section I was talking about in my reports.
What do you consider "high risk" would be the key.
And are tactics for "high risk" being used only for "high risk" or pretty much just for everything to make sure the local home owner doesn't flush a joint before you are able to take it?
Are viable alternatives with a minimum of force on the table and only pushed aside if not able to be used?
No shit. So big thumbs up for them doing the right thing after the fuckup, seriously. Now if they pay the guy for the damages (which I'm sure they'll do) all should be well. If that happened to me and they did that, I wouldn't sue. But if they pulled that "blue line" shit, I'd be retiring on their dime. Doing the right thing and being genuine about it goes a loooong way. It's about integrity.
Glad it didn't turn out worse. Bet they'll be more excited to do their due diligence in the future. Public records that even I can access for free online would have indicated that's the wrong house.
Still, hats off to the chief for doing the right thing. I only wish it was the rule and not the exception.
That is an excellent point. At my house as in most of rural America we are not connected to a public sewer, so if the police believed that I might flush evidence they could still recover the evidence after the flush. So let's start there with a new standard, No central sewer, no No Knock.
D
Deleted member 113831
Guest
???
D
Deleted member 113831
Guest
It isn't universally defined, but for the rules I've worked under, High Risk involved the confirmed presence of firearms and the subjects willingness to use them.
explosives, meth lab amongst many other things. basically the willingness to do harm or the presence of items or substance that can do others harm. the hard part is when kids are present. their presence in a high risk situation complicates things greatly. in the court of public opinion, there is no right answer. roll heavy and you are monsters dont roll heavy enough and you arent doing it right.
You might have to clearly add that criteria, that they must also be reasonably believed to be willing to knowingly and in a criminal manner use the firearms in an illegal and deadly fashion against lawful police officers going about their lawful duty.
Otherwise it gets setup with a bit of weasel work by the ruling class for everybody in the country to be treated as "high risk" because they might decide to exercise their constitutional right to own arms. And that's pretty much what's happened in some cases.
If you consider that under the constitution and natural law that the USA code of laws was based on, every law abiding citizen has the right to own firearms, and carry them ready for self defense as well as defend themselves and their property from aggressors and intruders unless those intruders were specifically sanctioned by the court with a court order (later diluted down to be some kind of vague immediate issue).
And depending on how much freedom has been robbed in the specific state, a law abiding citizen would be free to walk around his lawful business in public or on his property well armed.
So if somebody hears their door kicked in during the night, they have a constitutional right if they are a law abiding citizen (in a free state not ruled by communists) to meet the intruders with arms or guns as they choose and be ready to defend themselves unless the intruders are specifically authorized by the courts & can identify themselves as such.
And that's how nightmare scenarios of no knock warrants or the more often yelling police while smashing in a door and rushing in (like many criminals try to do these days), wind up happening and good people getting killed. (usually the homeowners even if not armed as has happened in some well publicized cases).
There's always been a risk of violence when serving a warrant. The 'No Knock' came about as a way, as mentioned above, to avoid the disposal of evidence while waiting a 'reasonable' amount of time for the door to be answered. This is how they sold it. There was a lot of pushback then and it's still a point of contention for me. It was a direct result of The War on Drugs.
NOT that I don't care about law enforcement and making their job easier, it's about the spirit of the US Constitution and it's obvious favoritism of the citizen over the State. Hence, why it's often very difficult for law enforcement to gather evidence. It was designed that way for a reason. I understand why.
NOT that I don't care about law enforcement and making their job easier, it's about the spirit of the US Constitution and it's obvious favoritism of the citizen over the State. Hence, why it's often very difficult for law enforcement to gather evidence. It was designed that way for a reason. I understand why.
D
Deleted member 113831
Guest
@W54/XM-388 So, you are basically saying that a man has every right to defend his meth lab with deadly force since he hasn't been convicted and hasn't had that right taken from him yet.
Interesting perspective.
Or do I misunderstand?
Interesting perspective.
Or do I misunderstand?
Last edited by a moderator:
Can you explain where you came to that conclusion?
D
Deleted member 113831
Guest
You posted while I was writing to the post above yours. Sorry about that, I should have replied to it directly.
No problem.
I just want you to be sure that I'm not saying that. I know it's a difficult line to walk.
I'm not sure where you got that idea from?
But there are 2 parts of to the answer to your reflexive statement:
When it comes to the meth cook defending his criminal enterprise from other criminals, that is where the courts have all kinds of fun and lawyers get to put their kids through college, and we really aren't talking about that in this thread. The police will pickup whomever is left & get them to jail, probably at gunpoint since a big violent crime in one way or another has just gone down between criminals, for the courts to sort out & lawyers to make fortunes and fame over.
What we are specifically talking about is lawful police action, so it's a different matter:
Also I specifically stated "Law abiding citizen" as a prerequisite for the right of self defense, which kind of excludes running a meth lab:
If careful and detailed surveillance shows that someone is actually running a meth lab or some other similar criminal enterprise
(not just the "statement" from some "informant" who often turn out to be liars telling you anything to get what they want)
And the police have substantially sound reason to expect that from experience, the best way to go about things is to do a no knock entry with the warrant stating that, then by all means go ahead.
However it would be prudent to try not kill them if possible, before it is made clear that it is the real police and give them a chance to drop their weapons promptly and surrender. Of course sometimes this is not possible if they start shooting first or such or if it's a hostage or terrorist type situation etc.
As per my previous statement, they kind of fit into the:
"be reasonably believed to be willing to knowingly and in a criminal manner use the firearms in an illegal and deadly fashion against lawful police officers going about their lawful duty. "
Generally also those involved in running a meth lab are probably not law abiding citizens with no prior convictions, which adds to the "reasonably believed" case.
Also in that case, if the property in question is in a residential area, there may be a public safety issue that needs to be addressed in that an attempt to destroy the lab could burn down several properties. On the other hand if it's in a remote area and stand alone, one might weigh the risk of officers getting hurt in an explosion with the need to grab them suddenly.
However in the case of what we are talking about above, it is pretty clear that detailed and careful surveillance had not been done and the tactics used caused good people on both sides to be put in life threatening danger, and it's a very unfortunate nightmare scenario that many of us worry about.
Both sides were good people acting as they thought was lawful and neither wanted to kill anybody who was "good". As soon as the law abiding home owner ascertained that it was the police, he ended the issue & the police were calm enough to realize this & fortunately everybody lived.
But none of it had to happen in the first place. If somebody had bothered to actually do proper surveillance and think things through before the mission, they would have either a. found out that it was the wrong place or b. realized that perhaps wait for morning after surrounding the house, then turn on lights & sirens & ask for cooperation before kicking the door in might have been a good course of action.
Last edited:
W54, you are much too reasonable.
I mean that in the nicest way possible.
I mean that in the nicest way possible.
D
Deleted member 113831
Guest
I think we are on the same page, I don't disagree with any of that. I wasn't totally sure what you were getting at before.
So the home invaders got away with attempted murder, sad news, hope justice is bought down on their heads.
I dont see where the bill of rights is limited to law abiding at all, a right is a right, people have the right to defend themselves no matter what. Cops assault you is the same as a thug assaulting you, cops get no special authority above the constitution to threaten you.
Look at the self defense laws in most states.... they are usually something to the following:
“The use of deadly force is justified so long as, through no action of your own, you feel your life in eminent danger, And you are anywhere you are legally allowed to be.”
So yes.... someone cooking meth in their own home CAN in fact legally claim sell defense in a shooting.....even if they are legally barred from owning firearms.
Because the meth cooking.... the shooting..... and the firearms possession are all separate charges.
So a criminal can shoot someone with an illegally owened gun.... and they’ll probably go to jail for drug and gun charges.... but legally be cleared of murder charges
“The use of deadly force is justified so long as, through no action of your own, you feel your life in eminent danger, And you are anywhere you are legally allowed to be.”
So yes.... someone cooking meth in their own home CAN in fact legally claim sell defense in a shooting.....even if they are legally barred from owning firearms.
Because the meth cooking.... the shooting..... and the firearms possession are all separate charges.
So a criminal can shoot someone with an illegally owened gun.... and they’ll probably go to jail for drug and gun charges.... but legally be cleared of murder charges
The law doesn't matter anymore, didn't you get the memo?
D
Deleted member 113831
Guest
No one in the act of a felony can claim any constitutional right to continue that felony.
You can't claim freedom of speech or freedom of association in the act of treason for example.
yes you can
Bullshit, who determines a felony? Your logic is flawed as was the cops attempting to murder that guy in his apartment.
D
Deleted member 113831
Guest
By your logic, no one would ever be arrested until proven guilty beyond a shadow of doubt to the satisfaction of the accused.
you think a crime has happened you arrest the guy when he leaves his property and house, you break the door down you get shot, dont cry, courts have ruled on this you know that, so stop playing dumb.
He doesn’t want any of those things you described. Unless you’re talking about politicians specifically, then a lynch mob is ok.
Yes you absolutely can.
You’re legal right to self protection doesn’t end because you are committing a crime.
If I’m in my house commiting wirefraud.... and someone breaks into my house trying to rob me at gun point..my right to self defense isn’t void.
You legally don’t lose rights until you are convicted....
And even then you never legally lose the right to self defense
Last edited:
Fact is you guys convict a muther fcker before he had his day in court. Even in this thread you are calling the homeowner a felon when he hasn't been convicted of anything yet, hell you are calling this guy a felon even when you busted down the wrong goddam door. get over yourselves, you have no more authority to shoot anyone than a CCP does. You continue acting this way you are creating a lot of bad will and I mean very bad will amongst people that have supported the law all their lives. you are the reason there is a huge gap in trust with LEO's and the public, and I aint just talking the hood. Look how many condolences a cop shot thread gets even here on this hide, not many, not even close to just a few years ago. Keep playing gotcha and living by a two tiered justice system and you will pay a price, the country will pay a price, we will all pay a price. And the fault will lay mostly at the gang in blue, along with the Politician scumbags we have.
Ignore what I am saying at your peril, I wrote a very similar post right after the New Mexico cops killed that homeless guy on the side of the hill and you all came out justifying the murder. Hell you justified the murder of that dude on his porch. The angst does not dissipate from shit like that.
You guys think me a cop hater, contrary, I am giving you advice here, insurgency warfare advice, you are losing the battle and the war badly. Only an honest look at yourselves and your organizations and some house cleaning you all might turn it around. The country depends on it so get busy.
Ignore what I am saying at your peril, I wrote a very similar post right after the New Mexico cops killed that homeless guy on the side of the hill and you all came out justifying the murder. Hell you justified the murder of that dude on his porch. The angst does not dissipate from shit like that.
You guys think me a cop hater, contrary, I am giving you advice here, insurgency warfare advice, you are losing the battle and the war badly. Only an honest look at yourselves and your organizations and some house cleaning you all might turn it around. The country depends on it so get busy.
Similar threads
