SWAT raid gone wrong.......

[BCPVP]

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.

[kevin017]

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.

[Taso]

[ 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.

[kevin017]

[ 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.

[Taso]

"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%?

[kevin017]

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."

[Taso]

I wasn't trying to insinuate that.

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

[RR]

[ 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.

[DcifrThs]

[ 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

[Nielsio]

[ 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.