SWAT raid gone wrong.......

[mjkidd]

[ 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!

[kevin017]

[ 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.

[MuresanForMVP]

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...

[AbreuTime]

[ 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?

[BCPVP]

[ 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.

[adanthar]

[ 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."

[Copernicus]

[ 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.

[kevin017]

[ 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"

[Richard Tanner]

[ 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

[Richard Tanner]

[ 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