SWAT raid gone wrong.......
 

http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2004-...afternoon/full

Reading stories like this, I lean more twords allowing people to carry guns. Like....REAL guns. Then again, what are you gonna do against the government? Doesn't matter if they are wrong or right, they've got you outmatched.....

Re: SWAT raid gone wrong.......
 

1)It's worth pointing out that this is a Joe Arpaio affair (that sheriff who hates illegal immigrants, makes inmates wear pink underwear and is just loved by a good chunk of the right wing.)

2)The guy had guns. In fact, the reason they stormed his house was because he was suspected of owning more guns than he actually had.

Re: SWAT raid gone wrong.......
 

Yes, he did have two legal guns. But when I hear about this [censored], I want to allow people to defend themselves with rocket launchers and grenades. I can't believe that this kind of [censored] is allowed to fly at all in our country.

Re: SWAT raid gone wrong.......
 

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, he did have two legal guns. But when I hear about this [censored], I want to allow people to defend themselves with rocket launchers and grenades.

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah that's gonna solve the problem of overzealous SWAT teams run by "I'm tough on crime" redneck morons, especially when those morons are elected by ostensibly gun-friendly voters.

Re: SWAT raid gone wrong.......
 

[ QUOTE ]
2)The guy had guns.

[/ QUOTE ]

What point are you trying to make?


[ QUOTE ]
In fact, the reason they stormed his house was because he was suspected of owning more guns than he actually had.

[/ QUOTE ]

How can you own more guns than you own?

Also: what is the point you are trying to make?

Re: SWAT raid gone wrong.......
 

I don't have to hear about this sort of thing before wanting to allow people to defend themselves by any means necessary. The law of survival trumps any manmade law -- not enough people understand that.

Re: SWAT raid gone wrong.......
 

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, he did have two legal guns. But when I hear about this [censored], I want to allow people to defend themselves with rocket launchers and grenades. I can't believe that this kind of [censored] is allowed to fly at all in our country.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand this sentiment. This story makes me wonder if people should have greater legal recourse over recklessly conducted SWAT raids. Having more weapons in the hands of suspects is just going to make SWAT raids more violent, more dangerous, and easier to defend.

Re: SWAT raid gone wrong.......
 

what i wonder, is what is the proper response to this happening to you? let's say you have any and all legal weapons available to you, and you've done nothing wrong or at least nothing to warrant this type of invasion.

surrender if you can do so safely, otherwise defend yourself?

my biggest problem with this is if they are so recklessly assaulting me and mine, why should i trust that they won't harm me if i surrender?

Re: SWAT raid gone wrong.......
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, he did have two legal guns. But when I hear about this [censored], I want to allow people to defend themselves with rocket launchers and grenades. I can't believe that this kind of [censored] is allowed to fly at all in our country.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand this sentiment. This story makes me wonder if people should have greater legal recourse over recklessly conducted SWAT raids. Having more weapons in the hands of suspects is just going to make SWAT raids more violent, more dangerous, and easier to defend.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or perhaps the government wouldn't go busting around like this if the people could defend themselves. I can think of no justifiable reason for this to occur AT ALL.

Re: SWAT raid gone wrong.......
 

[ QUOTE ]
what i wonder, is what is the proper response to this happening to you? let's say you have any and all legal weapons available to you, and you've done nothing wrong or at least nothing to warrant this type of invasion.

surrender if you can do so safely, otherwise defend yourself?

my biggest problem with this is if they are so recklessly assaulting me and mine, why should i trust that they won't harm me if i surrender?

[/ QUOTE ]

I certainly wouldn't trust them to not harm me.

Re: SWAT raid gone wrong.......
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, he did have two legal guns. But when I hear about this [censored], I want to allow people to defend themselves with rocket launchers and grenades. I can't believe that this kind of [censored] is allowed to fly at all in our country.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand this sentiment. This story makes me wonder if people should have greater legal recourse over recklessly conducted SWAT raids. Having more weapons in the hands of suspects is just going to make SWAT raids more violent, more dangerous, and easier to defend.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or perhaps the government wouldn't go busting around like this if the people could defend themselves. I can think of no justifiable reason for this to occur AT ALL.

[/ QUOTE ]

The people at Waco had lots of guns.

Re: SWAT raid gone wrong.......
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, he did have two legal guns. But when I hear about this [censored], I want to allow people to defend themselves with rocket launchers and grenades. I can't believe that this kind of [censored] is allowed to fly at all in our country.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand this sentiment. This story makes me wonder if people should have greater legal recourse over recklessly conducted SWAT raids. Having more weapons in the hands of suspects is just going to make SWAT raids more violent, more dangerous, and easier to defend.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or perhaps the government wouldn't go busting around like this if the people could defend themselves. I can think of no justifiable reason for this to occur AT ALL.

[/ QUOTE ]


You are 100% correct.

The people in the house were not doing anyone harm. There was one criminal gang and they were the police who violently assaulted a group of people.

Re: SWAT raid gone wrong.......
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Or perhaps the government wouldn't go busting around like this if the people could defend themselves. I can think of no justifiable reason for this to occur AT ALL.

[/ QUOTE ]

The people at Waco had lots of guns.

[/ QUOTE ]

This case is clearly not Waco. I'm not saying that force is NEVER justifiable. But the way that it was done, and for the REASONS that it was done, should never happen.

Re: SWAT raid gone wrong.......
 

A 2004 article, written in as inflammatory manner as possible. what a waste of 5 minutes of a Sunday

Re: SWAT raid gone wrong.......
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Or perhaps the government wouldn't go busting around like this if the people could defend themselves. I can think of no justifiable reason for this to occur AT ALL.

[/ QUOTE ]

The people at Waco had lots of guns.

[/ QUOTE ]

This case is clearly not Waco. I'm not saying that force is NEVER justifiable. But the way that it was done, and for the REASONS that it was done, should never happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't disagree at all. I just don't understand how adding more guns to the situation would do anything but create more violence, danger, and destruction.

Re: SWAT raid gone wrong.......
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don't disagree at all. I just don't understand how adding more guns to the situation would do anything but create more violence, danger, and destruction.

[/ QUOTE ]

this homeowner owned a gun, but he didn't start shooting up the police. being armed gives a responsible citizen the opportunity to protect the lives of himself and his family, even from the police if need be. however, this doesn't mean that a responsible citizen will just take to his arms and start shooting if there are other means of resolution.

Re: SWAT raid gone wrong.......
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Or perhaps the government wouldn't go busting around like this if the people could defend themselves. I can think of no justifiable reason for this to occur AT ALL.

[/ QUOTE ]

The people at Waco had lots of guns.

[/ QUOTE ]

This case is clearly not Waco. I'm not saying that force is NEVER justifiable. But the way that it was done, and for the REASONS that it was done, should never happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you saying Waco was justified? Go watch Waco: Rules of Engagement -- it will amaze you.

Re: SWAT raid gone wrong.......
 

[ QUOTE ]
Are you saying Waco was justified? Go watch Waco: Rules of Engagement -- it will amaze you.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not saying that it WAS justified, but that this was a completely different situation. Waco was a seige. This was just a raid.

Re: SWAT raid gone wrong.......
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Are you saying Waco was justified? Go watch Waco: Rules of Engagement -- it will amaze you.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not saying that it WAS justified, but that this was a completely different situation. Waco was a seige. This was just a raid.

[/ QUOTE ]

For the record, Waco was a siege following a raid that went bad.

Re: SWAT raid gone wrong.......
 

Homeowners should be allowed to own any and all weapons that the government can own.

Please pass out the nukes. K thx.

Re: SWAT raid gone wrong.......
 

I'd highly recommend Overkill: The Rise of Paramilitary Police Raids in America. This incident was fairly harmless considering many other incidents where SWAT has killed innocent people with these reckless raids.

Re: SWAT raid gone wrong.......
 

wow, that's a good read. these swat raids generally stay out of the news, and its easy to think "ah well that's just a rare occurence, nothing to worry about", but that is pretty eye-opening.

Re: SWAT raid gone wrong.......
 

[ QUOTE ]
what i wonder, is what is the proper response to this happening to you? let's say you have any and all legal weapons available to you, and you've done nothing wrong or at least nothing to warrant this type of invasion.

surrender if you can do so safely, otherwise defend yourself?

my biggest problem with this is if they are so recklessly assaulting me and mine, why should i trust that they won't harm me if i surrender?

[/ QUOTE ]


I think everyone is taking this obviously not objective article way too seriously. We are missing a LOT from the story - nearly all of it actually, because the story as is doesn't make any sense.

Furthermore, I don't know why you people get your news from papers that have the word "hood" written in them.

Re: SWAT raid gone wrong.......
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think everyone is taking this obviously not objective article way too seriously. We are missing a LOT from the story - nearly all of it actually, because the story as is doesn't make any sense.

Furthermore, I don't know why you people get your news from papers that have the word "hood" written in them.

[/ QUOTE ]

read the article linked by bcpvp. then come back and make the above statement. Also I just noticed, the cato "Overkill" article describes the incident almost exactly the same, it is listed under "The Ahwatukee Raid."

additionally, what does this really have to do with what I asked? The police swat team raids innocent people's houses all the time, nearly always giving no announcement of who they are and in the middle of the night. You as a citizen are expected to wake up, identify an armed intruder dressed in black as the police, and not defend yourself.

Here's an example from that cato report.

"On September 4, 1998, for example, police in Charlotte, North
Carolina, deployed a flashbang grenade and carried out a no-knock warrant based on a tip that someone in the targeted home was distributing cocaine. When police got inside, they found a group of men playing cards. One of them, 56-year-old Charles Irwin Potts, was carrying a handgun, which he owned and carried legally. Potts was not the target of the raid. He had visited the house to play a game of cards. Police say Potts drew his gun and pointed it at them as they entered, at which time they opened fire, killing Potts with four shots to the chest. The three men in the house who saw the raid say the gun never left Potts’s holster. Police found no cocaine in the home, and made no arrests.

The men inside the house at the time of the raid thought criminals were invading them. “Only thing I heard was a big boom,” said Robert Junior Hardin, the original target of the raid. “The lights went off and then they came back on . . . everybody reacted. We thought the house was being robbed.” Despite Potts’s death, an internal investigation found no wrongdoing on the part of the raiding officers."


So I again ask, as a citizen what should I do? not draw on anyone breaking down my door for fear they might be police? If that is what it takes in order to ensure the police don't kill me, perhaps it is worth losing my life over.

Re: SWAT raid gone wrong.......
 

"Police say Potts drew his gun" "three men in the house...say the gun never left Potts's holster"

I wonder why, out of all the men sitting there, the police decided to shoot and kill Potts, and none of the others. What makes sense:

One of the officers knew Potts and had taken a bad beat from hin in the previous card game. - Nah, no good.

The police, while rushing into the room, singled out Potts and looked closely to see he was carrying a weapon. And then, even though it posed no immediate threat to them, opened fire. - Doesn't make any sense either.

The police, rushed into the room and Potts, suspecting criminals were coming into the house removed his weapon and pointed it at the police, resulting in the police feeling threatened and shooting him. <this one makes more sense.

As for your question, I'd be curious to see a statistic that shows, on average, how often a entrence made with a flashbang grenade ISN'T the police. I wonder what that % is. 0%?

Re: SWAT raid gone wrong.......
 

Your whole post is directed at proving he did draw. I don't disagree that he may have. Say he did, what's your point?

[ QUOTE ]
As for your question, I'd be curious to see a statistic that shows, on average, how often a entrence made with a flashbang grenade ISN'T the police. I wonder what that % is. 0%?

[/ QUOTE ]

You're acting like they sat down and had tea and cake while discussing the flashbang. the police knocked the door in and detonated a [censored] grenade that's designed to disorient and confuse. How can you blame him for thinking they were being robbed and pulling his gun? the police were doing everything they could to make sure he had no opportunity to figure out what was going on before deadly force was involved, and its not as though he's some dangerous felon who might be expecting it. He's just joe poker player.

And, in case you were trying to insinuate with your flashbang comment that nobody ever tries to impersonate the police...

"In January 2006, Jonathan Dodson of Des Moines, Iowa, was charged with impersonating a public official in burglary after he and another man gained entry to a home by claiming to be U.S. Marshals.
• In October 2005, a couple in Clay County, Kansas, broke into a 79-year old man’s home while pretending to be police officers. They ransacked his home and stole a wallet, credit cards, and two bottles of medication.
• On July 15, 2005, two intruders claimed to be police officers to gain entry to a home in Oak Park, Michigan. Inside, the assailants forced residents to the floor and made off with cash, jewelry, and a shotgun.
• On November 29, 2005, two men staged a fake drug raid while holding up a residence in Syracuse, New York. Authorities believe the men had conducted similar phony raids four or five times before.
• In January 2005, an Alexandria, Virginia, lawyer was dragged from his home by three gunmen, who gained access after telling the man’s son they were police. Kenneth Labowitz was kidnapped after gunmen—still claiming to be federal agents—shocked his wife with a stun gun. Labowitz was beaten, hit with a stun gun, and taken to a remote area where the men said they had already prepared his grave. Labowitz eventually escaped, and the gunmen were prosecuted.
• In October 2004, five men pretending to be police invaded a home near Collierville, Tennessee. The men broke open the door at 3 a.m., then yelled “FBI!” to throw the couple inside off-guard. All were wearing black shirts emblazoned with the word “POLICE.” Michael and Katrina Perry were then bound, beaten, and tortured. The intruders then searched the home for valuables and left in the
couple’s SUV.
• In July 2004, several men stormed a home near Houston, Texas, screaming “HPD, HPD!” referring to the Houston Police Department. Once inside, they took cash and jewelry and shot both of the home’s occupants. One was grazed, the other was critically injured.
• In January 2003, at 1 a.m. on a Sunday, several men in ski masks claiming to be police knocked on a window, then broke open the door to a home in Edinburg, Texas. It was the latest in a string of incidents in which drug dealers had broken into homes posing as police on fake drug raids. Once inside, the men tied up six young men they found inside and in an adjacent shed and shot them to
death."

Re: SWAT raid gone wrong.......
 

I wasn't trying to insinuate that.

I see your point, but how do you suggest the police go about enforcing these search warrants?

Re: SWAT raid gone wrong.......
 

[ QUOTE ]
I wasn't trying to insinuate that.

I see your point, but how do you suggest the police go about enforcing these search warrants?

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps attach criminal liability to doing shoddy police work. If someone is dangerous enough that they need to use grenades they could spend some time on surveillance to make sure they are at the right place.

Re: SWAT raid gone wrong.......
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In fact, the reason they stormed his house was because he was suspected of owning more guns than he actually had.

[/ QUOTE ]

How can you own more guns than you own?


[/ QUOTE ]

how can you not be able to interpret? do you really think the police suspected the guy of actually owning more guns than he really owned? do you think the sentance could have been meant as "in fact, the reason they stormed his house was because he was suspected of possesing more guns than they actually found in his possession after the raid"

Suspected (not realized/estimated) vs. Actually (realized)

your statement is similar to saying: how could saddam have had fewer WMD's than he actually had? could it be that it was suspected he had X WMDs and Y were actually found where X is some exagerated positve number and Y is zero?

i only post this critique because it goes back to what i mentioned in another thread about conspiracy theorists on average being relatively poorer logical thinkers. obviously not conclusive..but this is just another (negligible in the long run, but funny in this case) piece of evidence.

Barron

Re: SWAT raid gone wrong.......
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In fact, the reason they stormed his house was because he was suspected of owning more guns than he actually had.

[/ QUOTE ]

How can you own more guns than you own?


[/ QUOTE ]

how can you not be able to interpret? do you really think the police suspected the guy of actually owning more guns than he really owned? do you think the sentance could have been meant as "in fact, the reason they stormed his house was because he was suspected of possesing more guns than they actually found in his possession after the raid"

Suspected (not realized/estimated) vs. Actually (realized)

your statement is similar to saying: how could saddam have had fewer WMD's than he actually had? could it be that it was suspected he had X WMDs and Y were actually found where X is some exagerated positve number and Y is zero?

i only post this critique because it goes back to what i mentioned in another thread about conspiracy theorists on average being relatively poorer logical thinkers. obviously not conclusive..but this is just another (negligible in the long run, but funny in this case) piece of evidence.

Barron

[/ QUOTE ]


Uhh lol? Either you don't get it or you really don't get it.

Re: SWAT raid gone wrong.......
 

[ QUOTE ]
In fact, the reason they stormed his house was because he was suspected of owning more guns than he actually had.


[/ QUOTE ]

How many guns can I own before the police storm my house? I hope I'm not in violation of my quota!

Re: SWAT raid gone wrong.......
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I wasn't trying to insinuate that.

I see your point, but how do you suggest the police go about enforcing these search warrants?

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps attach criminal liability to doing shoddy police work. If someone is dangerous enough that they need to use grenades they could spend some time on surveillance to make sure they are at the right place.

[/ QUOTE ]

its as simple as this. make police liable for their actions. all of a sudden, just because some felon tips them that he smoked weed at an apartment he went to one time that he thinks is #308 won't fly. As it is right now, they make mistakes constantly, and are immune to pretty much all consequences.

what it comes down to, is that 95% of these no-knock warrants never should've been approved in the first place, and it makes me question whether we can trust our police with military force.

Re: SWAT raid gone wrong.......
 

this is yet another example of the police not being sufficiently trained to use military force. They're a bunch of bumbling idiots when it comes to stuff like this, and I completely agree that there should be repercussions when an event like this occurs. Just ridiculous...

Re: SWAT raid gone wrong.......
 

[ QUOTE ]

2)The guy had guns. In fact, the reason they stormed his house was because he was suspected of owning more guns than he actually had.

[/ QUOTE ]
If he had illegal guns in his possession (I assume this is what you mean when you say he owned more guns than were found), would this be sufficient for the SWAT raid? If the person with outstanding warrant is a gunowner, then he gets the SWAT team called on him? I skimmed the article, and it said that [ QUOTE ]
He was wanted on a misdemeanor warrant for failing to appear in Tempe Municipal Court on a couple of traffic citations. ...
He posted his $1,000 bond on the misdemeanor warrant and was quickly released from jail.

[/ QUOTE ]
The guy that owned the arms was arrested the morning before the raid. You may have overlooked this detail. So the man of interest was in custody, and the man remaining was wanted for traffic violations. Call in the SWAT!

The circumstances leading to the raid, along with the way it was carried out, is not troubling at all? You're really ok with how everything was carried out?

Re: SWAT raid gone wrong.......
 

[ QUOTE ]
So the man of interest was in custody, and the man remaining was wanted for traffic violations. Call in the SWAT!

[/ QUOTE ]
To be fair, I believe the guy that was arrested first lied to the police saying the other guy had all sorts of illegal guns. So the SWAT wasn't called in to arrest someone for traffic violations, but I also don't think the response was at all justified.

Re: SWAT raid gone wrong.......
 

[ QUOTE ]
Uhh lol? Either you don't get it or you really don't get it.

[/ QUOTE ]

does 'getting it' involve listening to Hal Turner about the Amero's arrival?

anyway, wow @ the level of reading comprehension in this forum.

[ QUOTE ]
If he had illegal guns in his possession (I assume this is what you mean when you say he owned more guns than were found)

[/ QUOTE ]

like I said, wow @ the RC here. Did I say that? Did I even come close to saying that? What I said was "the police suspected he had lots of guns, even though he actually had only a few." Dcfrthis even explained it (I kinda gave up on this thread after Nielsio did that the first time), so for a second person to blatantly misread the reply is ridiculous.

[ QUOTE ]
The circumstances leading to the raid, along with the way it was carried out, is not troubling at all? You're really ok with how everything was carried out?

[/ QUOTE ]

lol.

reread my replies please. Then tell me if I'm "OK with it."

Re: SWAT raid gone wrong.......
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I wasn't trying to insinuate that.

I see your point, but how do you suggest the police go about enforcing these search warrants?

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps attach criminal liability to doing shoddy police work. If someone is dangerous enough that they need to use grenades they could spend some time on surveillance to make sure they are at the right place.

[/ QUOTE ]

its as simple as this. make police liable for their actions. all of a sudden, just because some felon tips them that he smoked weed at an apartment he went to one time that he thinks is #308 won't fly. As it is right now, they make mistakes constantly, and are immune to pretty much all consequences.

what it comes down to, is that 95% of these no-knock warrants never should've been approved in the first place, and it makes me question whether we can trust our police with military force.

[/ QUOTE ]

They make mistakes constantly? Why did it take a 3 year old incident to spark the discussion?

95% of the warrants shouldnt have been issued? Talk to the judges that issued them, not the police that executed them.

Make police liable? I assume you don't want there to be any police? They are liable for negligent or criminal actions, any lower standard and you won't have an effective police force.

Re: SWAT raid gone wrong.......
 

[ QUOTE ]
They make mistakes constantly? Why did it take a 3 year old incident to spark the discussion?

[/ QUOTE ]

because people are all too happy to forget about it, and the warrents are sealed to protect informants identities, so even after the fact people who have been wrongly searched can't find out why, they just get a report that there was no wrong-doing by the police, the end.

"Just a few months before the raid in Sunrise, in March 2005, police on a drug raid in Omao, Kauai, Hawaii, broke into the home of Sharon and William McCulley, at home at the time with their grandchildren. Police were tracking a box that allegedly contained marijuana, and believed it to be in the McCulleys’ possession. After breaking down the elderly McCulleys’ door, police threw the couple to the ground. They handcuffed Sharon McCulley and held her to the floor with a gun to her head—her grandchild lying next to her. William McCulley —who uses a walker and has an implanted device that delivers electrical shocks to his spine to relieve pain—began flopping around the floor when the device malfunctioned from the trauma of being violently thrown to the ground.11
Police had the wrong address. In fact, they conducted a second “wrong door” raid before finally tracking down the package.12"

That's just one recent example. In the article linked above there are hundreds of examples from the last ten years, and the list is not all inclusive.

"After the New York City raid that killed Alberta Spruill, Police chief Raymond Kelly estimated that at least 10 percent of the city’s 450+ monthly no-knock drug raids were served on the wrong address, under bad information, or otherwise didn’t produce enough evidence for an arrest. Kelly conceded, however, that NYPD didn’t keep careful track of botched raids, leading one city council member to speculate the problem could be even worse"

Re: SWAT raid gone wrong.......
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I wasn't trying to insinuate that.

I see your point, but how do you suggest the police go about enforcing these search warrants?

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps attach criminal liability to doing shoddy police work. If someone is dangerous enough that they need to use grenades they could spend some time on surveillance to make sure they are at the right place.

[/ QUOTE ]

its as simple as this. make police liable for their actions. all of a sudden, just because some felon tips them that he smoked weed at an apartment he went to one time that he thinks is #308 won't fly. As it is right now, they make mistakes constantly, and are immune to pretty much all consequences.

what it comes down to, is that 95% of these no-knock warrants never should've been approved in the first place, and it makes me question whether we can trust our police with military force.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agree 100%, transparency and accountability is what's needed here. It's easy not to care who you harm when there are no consequences. See how many "Oops, wrong house", incidents we have when it costs the officers money for participating.

EDIT: Cop was right when he talked about the warrents, those are the responsibility of the judges, not the officers.

Cody

Re: SWAT raid gone wrong.......
 

[ QUOTE ]
Make police liable? I assume you don't want there to be any police? They are liable for negligent or criminal actions, any lower standard and you won't have an effective police force.

[/ QUOTE ]

Cop, how is this not negligence. If you act in such a way that instead of containing a situation you exacerbate it, then that's the failure of the police. Certainly the police have the right to defend themselves, and it's the duty of the citizens to follow the law, but creating conlict as an excuse to pull your gun/live out your Die Hard fantasy isn't what the public asks of them.

Cody