Interesting - can you claim self-defense against presumeably clearly marked police officers?
-Trevor
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Apparently not Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
You can - whether or not it works is a case by case basis.
But I was curious - because of cases of "cop imposters" and attempts by plain-clothes officers to effect arrests, could one legitimately claim self-defense?
In this case, apparently not. But if a man with a gun rushed me, I'd probably be focused on the gun in his hand and not what he was yelling.
-Trevor
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Well, you have the right to request a uniformed police officer, and to ask for the badge number of any uniformed cop.
Though I can't say I wouldn't be freaked if the cops came in guns a blazing like in the movies.
Posted by Parsimony (Member # 8140) on :
The problem is they don't come in "guns a blazing". They come in with guns drawn. This guy opened fire, which is why they come in with guns drawn in the first place. It's tough to claim self-defense when you shot first.
--ApostleRadio
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
quote: It is strangely absurd to suppose that a million of human beings, collected together, are not under the same moral laws which bind each of them separately. -Thomas Jefferson
quote: It is self-evident that no number of men, by conspiring, and calling themselves a government, can acquire any rights whatever over other men, or other men’s property, which they had not before, as individuals. And whenever any number of men, calling themselves a government, do anything to another man, or to his property, which they had no right to do as individuals, they thereby declare themselves trespassers, robbers, or murderers, according to the nature of their acts. -Lysander Spooner
No individual has the right to break down my door or burst into my house armed or otherwise; therefore, no policeman does either. If that ever happens at our house, expect a similar headline.
-Katarain
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:No individual has the right to break down my door or burst into my house armed or otherwise; therefore, no policeman does either. If that ever happens at our house, expect a similar headline
Right now, yes. You are not a criminal, you are not harming anyone else. If you become such, though, you have in a manner of speaking declared war upon society.
At that point, your home / castle stands ready to be invaded, and you have brought it upon yourself.
Posted by Parsimony (Member # 8140) on :
Despite your personal feelings and those of Mr. Spooner, if you commit a crime the police do, in fact, have the right to enter your home under the law.
--ApostleRadio
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
No. If I break the law and they wish to arrest me or someone at my home, they may knock on the door and it will all come to a civil, peaceful conclusion.
If they have a warrant for search or seizure, they may knock at the door and present the warrant.
Only if I or someone at my home is holding someone hostage or firing guns from the windows may they burst in.
The point is... if it's dark and we're all sleeping and we hear someone break into the house, there will be no asking for ID or to see a badge. You broke into my house and in order to protect ourselves, you get hurt. Even during the daytime, surprising my husband by breaking down the door is not a good idea. There will be severe consequences, and an unjust government might put him in jail for it, but that doesn't make it right.
As for the posted story--I have no idea if that man was in the right or not.
Sorry, but I'm not buying the argument that by breaking a law I am declaring war on society--a war on an unjust law, maybe. And a lot of law breaking doesn't involve hurting anyone else at all.
-Katarain
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
I'd like to point out that law enforcement officers are trained to keep their fingers off the trigger until they are ready to fire.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
I actually agree with Katarain on this one.
These guys bust in with m-16s drawn and point them right at your head. There have been many cases where they have killed someone who got surprised by an ATF/DEA enforcer. The natural reaction is to jump up or try to run. BANG! Some kid is dead. Why? Because he grows or distributes marijuana, and freaks out at the site of guns drawn.
They don't even try to knock on your door. They even intentionally do it at night.
It makes no sense! These are drug dealers, not terrorists. Not kidnappers. When you are pulled over, cops don't run at you with their gun drawn. They didn't burst into Ken Lay's house and stick a gun in his face.
I don't think the guy should have done what he did, but I agree that if the cops had shown up at his house and knocked on the door like any other type of cop, he would have went quietly.
This policy has to change. It hasn't changed after several times a suspect got killed, maybe it will now that some cops did.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Training standards vary wildly, as does practical range time and high-threat, high-stress training.
Being able to pass periodic certification exams with a handgun is not the same as ensuring an officer's competence and ability to handle a firearm correctly in a high-stress situation.
I'm not trying to offend Mrs. M and if I have done so, I'll apologize now - but I have some strong opinions on the relative training standards of police officers and their departments.
-Trevor
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
I believe the reason why SWAT and similar tactical officers force entry in a loud and violent manner is to surprise the suspects and gain control of the situation before they have the opportunity to react and decide to resist or not.
I'm not saying I believe or disbelieve the theory behind the principle - simply pointing out some of the logic behind it.
-Trevor
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
I shot the sheriff, but I swear it was in self-defense I shot the sheriff, and they say it is a capitol offense
Sheriff John Brown always hated me For what I don't know And ev'ry time I that plant a seed, he said kill it before it grow He said kill it before it grows (I say)
(c) Copyright 1974 by Cayman Music Inc.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Is it a gun, is it a knife Is it a wallet, this is your life It ain't no secret It ain't no secret No secret my friend You can get killed just for living In your American skin
Something about this doesn't quite add up... Was the gun just sitting in his lap when the police burst in? In order to claim he shot them out of surprise and lack of knowledge as to who they were, the gun would have very nearly had be in his hand. Otherwise the police would have attempted to subdue him before he went for the gun, or if he wasn't in the same room he would have heard them shouting "POLICE! FREEZE!" before getting into a line of sight to fire.
My impulse reaction was to agree that if I had a gun in my hand and someone burst in the door I would fire. My second reaction was to despise the situation because the guy wasn't even the one they were there for. But in reality, I can't see a scenario where I would be in a situation to shoot a cop without having all doubt about their identity removed.
Can anyone think of a plausible manner in which one could accidentally shoot three cops in this scenario? (Saying accidentally to assume he wasn't intentionally gunning for the police, which would be another matter entirely). To me, the situation seems to suggest that he knew what his roommate was involved in, and that he knew someone was coming in the house. If that's so, I agree wholeheartedly with the verdict.
Feyd Baron, DoC
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
Plus, the fact that two of them were shot in the back takes away from the self defense claim. It is hard to say you are defending yourself against someone who has their back facing you.
Posted by Parsimony (Member # 8140) on :
That's the way it would seem from what little we know, Feyd. It's really tough to say without knowing more details of the case.
One day I will be involved in law enforcement, and my brother and sister are currently involved in law enforcement. I say this to openly admit my bias. I love the law and I love the folks who do this job.
That being said, the tactics that seem to have been used here are pretty standard. The element of surprise is used so the guys don't have a chance to think about running. The fact that two of these police officers were shot in the back while attempting to arrest this guys roommate leads me to believe, perhaps incorrectly, that his claim of self defense is somewhat less than true.
At the same time, there is no reason those officers should have been facing the other direction in this situation. The fact that they were not watching the roommate leads me to believe they used some poor judgement in the strategy to storm this house.
All told, it is always tragic when an officer dies in the line of duty. To somehow suggest that this is what these folks deserved for being cops in the first place is quite disheartening. Regardless of your views of specific drug laws, the deaths of police officers is not something to take lightly. Your fight is with the system, with the law, and there are ways to legally fight that fight. The officers who help to enforce that law are not the enemy.
--ApostleRadio
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Didn't y'all see the Law & Order about this case? Granted, the details were changed, but still . . . It was called "41 Shots"
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
Trevor, you didn't offend me at all. I was speaking from my own experience - I have received instruction from police firearms trainers in 4 states and they all had extremely high standards.
I think it's hard for any of us to comment on this particular case b/c we just don't have enough information. We don't know the service record of any of the officers - for example, did any of the officers have excessive force complaints against them? It seems like the article would have mentioned something like that, but you never know. Also, I can't figure out how the dealer could have shot 2 of the officers in the back in self defense.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
We also don't know the layout of the house, the actions of the officers involved and the sequence of events - as everyone else has noted, "we just don't know enough of the details."
A veteran officer was killed while serving a warrant several years ago because she ignored basic house-clearing protocol.
She ignored several rooms that hadn't been checked and "cleared" and proceeded to the end of the hallway.
The subject of the warrant came out of one of the doors she passed over and shot her - the bullet went in under her armpit, bypassing the body armor and killed her.
-Trevor
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:It makes no sense! These are drug dealers, not terrorists.
You obviously aren't a cop in Ensley Alabama - I can assure you it's much like being in a war zone since my husband is a paramedic in the same area. The drug dealers are armed with assault weapons and they use them. How are the cops supposed to act? A drug dealer with a machine gun can kill you just as well as can a terrorist, and based on statistics, a lot more cops and citizens of the US will meet their end at the hand of drug dealers than will at the hand of terrorists.
My husband knew all three cops, but Harley Chisholm especially was a good friend.
These were good cops, and as far as I know there were no records of excessive force or major complaints against them. You aren't seeing any of the details of the case - for one thing, Officer Chisholm had already tried to serve the warrant earlier that day. The murderer knew they were coming and was laying in wait. It was an ambush. If an officer has already been at your house that day, looking for you by name with a warrant, then you can't claim you were "surprised" when they came back, especially when the officer tells you he will be back. He suspected there might be trouble, so he brought backup. They were uniformed officers lawfully executing a warrant and this guy laid up and opened fire on the first one before anybody could react. Then he killed the other two as they tried to come to the aid of their fellow officer.
Wes was off duty the day it happened, but he heard about it from the paramedics that made the call. Everyone involved said the cops were just mowed down in cold blood.
It was a very difficult, emotional day for everyone involved in public service in Birmingham. They were good men, Harley had been on the force a long time and was well known in the community and well liked by many.
The Birmingham police handled themselves commendably on that day, the suspect surrendered and was brought safely into custody and he was tried by our justice system, and found guilty. Everything worked the way it's supposed to.
And yet, three good men are dead. Out of respect for their families, and their friends, could we stop speculating on what the cops might have done to "deserve" getting shot? If you don't know the details and facts of the case, then please refrain from acting as if the cops did something to merit being mowed down in cold blood. From everything I've heard about the case, and the type of man my husband assures me Harley was, I am quite confident that the jury rendered the correct verdict.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
But what if the same thing happened in my neighborhood? I live in middle to upper class white suburbia. There's little to no real crime here. I can't remember the last time we had any shooting related crime. The biggest crime that comes to mind actually involved my next door neighbor, who was arrested in the biggest drug bust in Michigan history. But even then it felt like more of a white collar crime, there weren't any guns involved.
Now I know my uncle has a gun in his home. We don't live in anything approaching a dangerous neighborhood, in fact my uncle's house was on the cover of Better Homes and Gardens two years ago. If the Royal Oak PD (my city) burst into his house to serve a warrant and he opened fire, would that really be that out of line?
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Does it say somewhere that they burst into the house without identifying themselves? Because I don't think that's how it happened. They had one person at the front door, and two at the back if I remember right. They identified themselves as police officers and asked the suspect to surrender and come out. Again, they had already been to the house looking for him, and he wasn't home. So the roommate knew the cops were coming back.
And yes, if you are in your house and the police tell you they are coming in to serve a warrant and you don't surrender but instead open fire, then you're guilty of murder, no matter what neighborhood you live in.
If I remember right, and my husband's asleep so I can't ask him, the first officer was shot on the front porch. The other two burst through the back door in an attempt to subdue the suspect and get to their fellow officer, and that's when the other gunman (whether it was the suspect or the roommate I'm not sure) shot them in the back. He was laying in wait for them in a room so that when they came through the door he had a clear shot at their backs. It was planned and premeditated.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
The problem, Belle, is that DEA agents make no distinction from hard core crack houses to kids who happen to sell marijuana. My neighbor two houses down got raided by about 14 guys with M-16s. They of course kicked out his door. He had a couple roommates that had nothing to do with drugs, who also got M-16s pointed at their faces. The only thing he ever sold was pot, and he was small time too. Plus, he had never owned a gun.
But you are right, I didn't know the details of the case. I am mostly angry at the policies of the cops in my former home town. After reading 4-5 cases where cops wrongly killed people in drug raids over the last year or so (nationally, not my hometown), it was starting to make me sick. The war on drugs... Well lets just say that its a set of policies that I have issues with.
And if that "deserve" comment was directed at me, I never said that they deserved it, or tried to imply that's what I believe.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
It wasn't directed at anyone in particular, this whole thing is very upsetting. See, the defense has tried to smear the cops reputations, by making allegations that they were dirty cops, which is not supported by any evidence at all and is very distressing to the families and the people that knew these guys. The self-defense argument is not about the cops bursting in the door and suprising him, he's claiming that the cops had threatened his life previously. The judge refused to allow that in, so the jury never even considered a self-defense argument.
Here is a link to an article that goes much more in depth.
quote:Prosecutors argued in the trial that the police were at an Ensley crack house to serve a misdemeanor warrant on Woods, 28, on June 17, 2004. They said Spencer was upset that the officers' presence interfered with his business, so he used an SKS rifle to kill Owen, Chisholm and Bennett in a premeditated attack.
Spencer also shot at a fleeing Collins, who took cover behind his patrol car and was hit in the hip with a bullet fragment.
Spencer claimed he fired in self-defense because at least two of the officers had threatened to kill him.
Prior to trial, one of Spencer's defense attorneys said two of the officers had received past payments to protect the dope house. When the payments stopped, the police started harassing those at the apartment, lawyer Scott Boudreaux said then.
That information was not presented to jurors at trial. A defense witness slated to give "crucial evidence" to their case never showed up to testify.
Many of those in and around the trial said the guilty verdict was especially satisfying, not only because it punishes the murderer, but because it may help clear the officers' reputations after a trial surrounded by accusations and innuendo.
"The truth speaks for itself, and the truth spoke for itself in this case," said Collins, the lone police survivor from that day. "It's easy to talk about the dead when they can't defend themselves."
Like I said, very upsetting things have been said, with no basis to back them up, no evidence at all. It's easy to call a cop a dirty cop when he's dead.
And I hate to even bring this up, because rumor and innuendo is so damaging, but this article does show how there was definite premeditation involved. This was no case of a man sitting innocently in his house and being surprised by a bunch of people pointing guns at him. He admits he planned to kill them when they showed up, he just tried to justify it by saying THEY had threatened him. Again, easy to say it was the dead cops who were dirty.
Posted by Parsimony (Member # 8140) on :
Actually Xavier, the DEA makes a large distinction between 14 year olds selling pot and crack dealers who commit homicides. My brother happens to be a DEA agent, and I have done some volunteer work for the DEA over the last year or so. I have pretty intimate knowledge of their methods.
Individual cops that you have problems with in your area are not neccessarily representative of an entire federal agency on the national level. Plus, there is a large difference between the methods and standards of local police vs those of federal agents.
--ApostleRadio
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Remember, only the NRA is protecting your right to own assault weapons and armor-piercing bullets to kill cops.
Posted by 0range7Penguin (Member # 7337) on :
I would rather have the cops overraid and go in tough -and by tough I don't mean shooting- than to go in slow and have cops die. Cops put their lives on the line for the rest of us. I think this country as a whole should respect cops more. THey insure our safety and freedom.
Posted by alluvion (Member # 7462) on :
07P,
"toughness"?
toughness is sitting on a couch and commandeering a "risk-game" of historical relevence phrased in local-yokeliness in the service of lord-knows-what, but...
I get ahead of myself.
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
aspectre, as a member and recruiter for the NRA, I object to your implication that NRA members support violence against police officers. Not only couldn't that be further from the truth, but many law enforcement officers are members of the NRA. Armor piercing ammunition is only legally available to law enforcement agencies and the armed forces. The NRA only opposed the initial legislation to ban armor piercing bullets because it would have also banned almost all standard rifle ammo as well. When the bill (H.R.3132) was amended (and the NRA was instrumental in that amendment), it passed with the NRA's support.
"Cop-killer" bullets are somewhat of a misnomer, btw. No law enforcement officer has ever been killed by a bullet from a handgun when he or she was properly wearing the appropriate protection. Most law enforcement officers are killed or injured by .22 calibur bullets because they ricochet inside the body and cause more damage.
Please take a look at the NRA web site for more information: www.nra.org Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Mrs. M can I say I'm just glad to have you here to set the record straight anytime anything gets brought up about the NRA. I would say that many, many people believe as aspectre does - that the NRA opposed the legislation and have no idea the NRA supported it with the amendment.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Yes, well - not all members of the NRA are quite as sensible. The infamous "jack booted thugs" comment leaps to mind.
On a completely unrelated note, Mrs. M - do you have any information on the certifications the NRA offers? I tried combing through the website and didn't have much luck.
-Trevor
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
My point was that it's a bad idea to surprise an armed person at night--because he or she doesn't KNOW that you're a police officer. Even in the daytime things can be confusing. I'm talking about regular people, here, who might have committed some minor offense--or not, and their doors are busted down.
We both have high respect for police officers, but we expect the same respect in return. Bust into my house--expect to pay the consequences. It may cost our lives, but we'll go down fighting. Point is: We don't know WHO you are. (you being whoever did the door kicking.) Knock politely, and you can arrest whoever you want--Properly and legally. Then we can fight in court as the situation warrants.
But I'm NOT talking about the type of situations mentioned here, especially what Belle was talking about. Those people were warned--and they killed police officers before they even entered the house. It's clear to me that's NOT the same sort of situation at all.
-Katarain
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:But I'm NOT talking about the type of situations mentioned here, especially what Belle was talking about. Those people were warned--and they killed police officers before they even entered the house. It's clear to me that's NOT the same sort of situation at all.
quote:No individual has the right to break down my door or burst into my house armed or otherwise; therefore, no policeman does either. If that ever happens at our house, expect a similar headline.
No. If I break the law and they wish to arrest me or someone at my home, they may knock on the door and it will all come to a civil, peaceful conclusion.
If they have a warrant for search or seizure, they may knock at the door and present the warrant.
Only if I or someone at my home is holding someone hostage or firing guns from the windows may they burst in.
You've said some contradictory things here.
The quotes you showed said remarkably different things than you're saying now, too (and they're silly, because we as a society give police power over us coupled with responsibilities.)
You've got a lot of balls insisting that police politely knock on the doors of 'minor criminals', since police don't do that anyway. They don't use the battering ram and come in with tear-gas and guns against jaywalkers and check-bouncers, they do it against serious criminals.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Wow… this does prove we’ll debate anything here on Hatrack
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Not really, Jay. Civil liberties versus governmental authority is a central theme to a lot of arguments here.
Show me a thread about "the merits of sexual intercourse with poodles" and then I'll agree with you.
-Trevor
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
The phrase "puppy love" takes on whole new levels of disturbing, doesn't it?
-Trevor
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:You've got a lot of balls insisting that police politely knock on the doors of 'minor criminals', since police don't do that anyway. They don't use the battering ram and come in with tear-gas and guns against jaywalkers and check-bouncers, they do it against serious criminals.
Like those damn dirty marijuana dealers. Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
If you’re a breeder you need to know the merits so that you can get these poodles together, else you’ll be going out of business and be stuck with a loud ankle bitter.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Ahem. Permit me to rephrase - "Is sexual intercourse between humans and poodles always wrong? Discuss." Find people to seriously argue both sides and then I'll agree with you.
@Xav - yes, well. I'm not that sympathetic as they were dealing in a controlled substance for personal gain.
-Trevor
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
I don't think the law makes a distinction between selling or giving away... and if you have over a certain amount of illegal substances, they automatically give you a dealing charge. So it's not like it's a given that dealing is what's going on.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
The "intent to distribute" clause. Depending on who they were giving it away to, assuming they were, I might be more sympathetic. But not all that much.
And on a completely unrelated note, damn - it's raining sideways in Atlanta.
Which is quite a sight when you're on the 8th floor and everything is obscured by mist and rain.
-Trevor
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Wow. I'm jealous. I'm about an hour west..and we have no rain.
-KataRAIN. hehe.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
The radio stations have been threatening rain all day, the "strong chances of thunder showers" routine.
I guess it finally hit. Last night, south of Atlanta near the airport was getting drenched.
-Trevor
Posted by poselito (Member # 8228) on :
About 7 or 8 years ago I heard of a similar story in Southern California. (probably an urban legend, but for the sake of discussion, lets say it happened)
The police come in and start taking over the home, shouting and brandishing weapons. The home owner panics and begins to shoot at theofficers. Gone from sound asleep to defence mode in seconds. Two officers go down, I don't remember if they were killed, but they do shoot and kill the homeowner.
The kicker in the story I heard is that the guy was innocent, they had in fact followed a bad lead and entered the wrong house.
Posted by calaban (Member # 2516) on :
I think some sentiments expressed here are part of a growing culture in the US that vilifies policemen, soldiers and other enforcers and it disturbs me.
A policemans job is even more thankless than a soldiers. Consider the fear that exists in the heart of a man, who has chosen service to his community as his profession, as he serves a legal warrant, meeting only the obfuscation, lies and threatening anger. He gets backup and comes back to do his job, a job that citizens of his community pay him to do and is met with a cold hearted ambush and death. And the question here is whether or not he should have been serving a warrant? That's legal everywhere.
It's like the case where a guy is running from policemen and charges them with his very large and deadly SUV. Every cop on the seen choses the life of himself and his fellow officer over that of thier attacker and fires, most emptying thier clip into the vehicle.
Most of the coverage of the event didn't cover that they were trying to capture a dangerous criminal or that individually they fared no more than nine to fifteen shots. The coverage stated the total amount of combined weapons discharge to shock people that the cops had to shoot 50+ times to stop this guy, with the purpose of questioning thier motives and the necessity of the force.
How many good policemen have to die to save the life of deperate criminals?
As far as I am concerned hundreds of bullets are warranted in such a situation. Our protectors as flawed and human as they may be deserve alot of respect just for taking the job. It's life threatening everyday and declaring them unfit from the comfort of homes made safe by the exact same community is ignorant and ungrateful.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
quote:I think some sentiments expressed here are part of a growing culture in the US that vilifies policemen, soldiers and other enforcers and it disturbs me.
That's funny, I sense a growing culture in the US that deifies policemen and soldiers and it disturbs me.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
It's possible - I remember a news story about an officer approaching a car to wake up a sleeping motorist.
Motorist starts awake and grabs for a gun - motorist gets shot.
Unfortunately, I don't see a way to prevent accidental shootings like this.
Some kid runs up and points a realistic toy gun at a cop, he's probably going to get shot.
I walk up to a cop and suddenly shove my hand inside my jacket, I'll probably get shot.
-Trevor
Edit: For typo
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
While the warrant was for a misdemeanor, Xavier, the police perhaps had a suspicion that the suspect was armed.
Turns out, they were right.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote: John Adams
64 years old Lebanon, Tennessee October, 2000
Shot to death during a SWAT drug raid while watching TV. The house didn't match the description on the warrant.
quote: Xavier Bennett
8 years old Atlanta, Georgia November, 1991
Xavier was accidentally shot to death by officers in a pre-dawn drug raid during a gunfight with one of Xavier's relatives.
quote: Delbert Bonnar
57 years old Belpre, Ohio October, 1998
Shot 8 times by police in drug raid. They were looking for his son.
quote:Rudolfo "Rudy" Cardenas
43 years old San Jose, California February, 2004
Rudy was a father of five who was passing by a house targeted by narcotics officers attempting to serve a parole violation warrant and the police mistakenly thought he was the one they were there to arrest. They chased Cardenas, and he fled, apparently afraid of them (they were not uniformed). Cardenas was shot multiple times in the back.
Dorothy Duckett, 78, told the Mercury News she looked out her fifth-floor window after hearing one gunshot and saw Cardenas pleading for his life. "I watched him running with his hands in the air. He kept saying, 'Don't shoot. Don't shoot,'" Duckett said. "He had absolutely nothing in his hands."
quote:Jose Colon
20 years old Suffolk, New York April, 2002
Jose was outside the house where he had come to repay a $20 debt, when a drug raid on the house commenced. He was shot in the head by SWAT.
quote:roy Davis
25 years old North Richland Hills, Texas December, 1991
During a no-knock raid to find some marijuana plants he was growing, he was shot to death in his living room. There are disputed accounts regarding whether he had a gun.
quote:Annie Rae Dixon
84 years old Tyler, Texas January, 1993
Bedridden with pneumonia during a drug raid. Officer kicked open her bedroom door and accidentally shot her.
quote:Juan Mendoza Fernandez
60 years old Dallas, Texas September, 2000
Police found a variety of drugs when they raided the Fernandez' home. However, Juan apparently believed he was the victim of burglars during the raid, and was shot while trying to protect his 11-year-old granddaughter. He and his wife had been married 36 years and had four children and 13 grandchildren.
quote:Willie Heard
46 years old Osawatomie, Kansas February, 1999
SWAT conducted a no-knock drug raid, complete with flash-bang grenades. Heard was shot to death in front of his wife and 16-year-old daughter who had cried for help. Fearing home invasion, he was holding an empty rifle. The raid was at the wrong house.
quote:Clayton Helriggle
23 years old Eaton, Ohio September, 2002
Clayton was shot to death while coming down the stairs during a suprise raid. He was carrying either a gun or a plastic cup, depending on the report. Less than an ounce of marijuana was found.
quote:John Hirko
21 years old Pennsylvania 1997
An unarmed man with no prior offenses was shot to death in his house by a squad of masked police. In a no-knock raid, they tossed a smoke grenade in through a window, setting the house on fire. Hirko, suspected of dealing small amounts of marijuana and cocaine, was found face down on his stairway, shot in the back while fleeing the burning building. When the fire was finally put out, officers found some marijuana seeds in an unsinged plastic bag.
quote:Lynette Gayle Jackson
29 years old Riverdale, Georgia September, 2000
Shot to death in her bed by SWAT team.
quote:Tony Marinez
19 years old De Valle, Texas December, 20001
Officers conducted a drug raid on a mobile home in De Valle. Martinez, who was not the target of the raid, was asleep on the couch when the raid commenced. Hearing the front door smashed open, he sat up, and was shot to death in the chest.
quote:smael Mena
45 years old Denver, Colorado September, 1999
Mena was killed when police barged into his house looking for drugs. They had the wrong address.
quote:Pedro Oregon Navarro
22 yeqrs old
July, 1998
Following up on a tip from a drug suspect, 6 officers crowded into a hallway outside Navarro's bedroom. When the door opened, one officer shouted that he had a gun. Navarro's gun was never fired, but officers fired 30 rounds, with 12 of them hitting Pedro. No drugs were found.
quote:Mario Paz
65 years old Compton, California August, 1999
Mario was shot twice in the back in his bedroom during a SWAT raid looking for marijuana. No drugs were found.
quote:Manuel Ramirez
Stockton, California January, 1993
At 2 am, police smashed down the door and rushed into the home of Manuel Ramirez, a retired golf course groundskeeper. Ramirez awoke, grabbed a pistol and shot and killed officer Arthur Parga before other officers killed him. Police were raiding the house based on a tip that drugs were on the premises, but they found no drugs.
quote:Alberto Sepulveda
11 years old Modesto, California September, 2000
Alberto was killed by a shotgun blast to the back while following police orders and lying face down on the floor during a SWAT raid. He was a seventh-grader at Prescott Senior Elementary School.
quote:Alberta Spruill
57 years old Harlem, New York May, 2003
Police, acting on a tip, forced their way into Spruill's home, setting off flash grenades. She suffered a heart attack and died. It was the wrong address.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
quote:Some kid runs up and points a realistic toy gun at a cop, he's probably going to get shot.
I walk up to a cop and suddenly shove my hand inside my jacket, I'll probably get shot.
See? That's exactly what I'm talking about. The policeman is startled and doesn't know that his life isn't in danger. But because he's a policeman, it is excusable that he shoot the kid or you, but in a reverse situation where you react to a startling situation and don't know if your life is in danger (and in fact, have greater reason to think that it IS, compared to your examples), then you're somehow in the wrong.
-Katarain
Posted by calaban (Member # 2516) on :
Sure, all mistakes. Have you looked at the statistics nationwide for successful raids and officer deaths? Quote individual situations and a tragedy is all that you have. Use statistics for successful raids versus unsuccessful, and factor officer deaths in and then you have a reason for such a list. Otherwise I submit that a list like that only causes people to fear policemen.
"probably going to get shot" ? Not at all most policeman are very focused and look for positive target identification. Its like saying that if you get out of your car when stopped for a traffic violation your "probably going to get shot." Your probably not going to get shot, but you most likely will get a gun drawn on you because the officer has a right to prepare to defend himself. If subsequently you stupidly act in a manner to threaten the officer you very well may end up shot. Remember these guys don't deal with death in the abstract like we are here, it happens to them or somone they know on a consistant basis.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
And I think my list demonstrates that they have every right to.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Your point Xavier?
It's an inherently dangerous job in bad situations. Some of those mistakes could and perhaps should be attributed to officers. But they cannot absolutely guarantee the situation.
If they could, guns and body armor wouldn't be necessary.
-Trevor
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
So? People have the right and frequently the very understandable reaction to fearing the police.
But committing a crime and shooting the police when they invade your home for it is not one of those times.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
If you can't see a point to my list in me trying to demonstrate that these no-knock raids are a bad policy, then we really have no common ground to talk with this issue.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
What constitutes a successful raid?
Where the guy they kill really is a BAD guy who was growing a pot plant in his closet?
Yeah, you're right. They must do all they can to rid our streets and homes of such a vile substance.
I think Xavier's list clearly demonstrates one thing: Marijuana kills.
Xavier, do you have a link for your list? (Don't you think it's odd that we were at odds at a prior debate--which I can't even remember now)?
-Katarain
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
quote:Originally posted by Katarain:
quote:Some kid runs up and points a realistic toy gun at a cop, he's probably going to get shot.
I walk up to a cop and suddenly shove my hand inside my jacket, I'll probably get shot.
See? That's exactly what I'm talking about. The policeman is startled and doesn't know that his life isn't in danger. But because he's a policeman, it is excusable that he shoot the kid or you, but in a reverse situation where you react to a startling situation and don't know if your life is in danger (and in fact, have greater reason to think that it IS, compared to your examples), then you're somehow in the wrong.
-Katarain
Versus? Waiting to see if the gun is real or I'm just reaching for my wallet? If they see a "toy" gun, should they wait until be fired upon before returning fire?
That kind of fire control and fire discipline costs time, money and lots of training to instill.
And even the highest trained professional can still make an error in judgement.
Part of this is my general gripe about the focus of training for police officers, but the rest is a simple fact of life.
-Trevor
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: If you can't see a point to my list in me trying to demonstrate that these no-knock raids are a bad policy, then we really have no common ground to talk with this issue.
That's one way to duck the issue.
Of course, we can just require the officers to knock, give the people inside a chance to grab weapons if they're so inclined and settle in for a long stand-off.
And we can ignore the time, energy and resources it costs to maintain such an action. Oh and naturally the suspects inside would never think of having a gun battle, so the surrounding civilians are never, ever in any danger from stray bullets.
-Trevor
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Sorry, Trevor, I was comparing two different situations.
I was comparing the cop's reaction when faced with what appears to be a dangerous situation (ie: a kid pointing a toy gun at him or you reaching into your jacket as if you were pulling out a weapon) vs. how a regular person might react when faced with their door being broken down in the middle of the night.
Both are startling and both can end in the threatened party (real or imagined threat) reaching for a weapon to defend themselves and/or family.
If one, while admitted to be a tragic mistake, can be overlooked, then why can't the other?
Its obviously a biased source (we else would compile such a list?). I did a google search for the first two cases, and both were confirmed by other sources (the first by an AP story). I didn't have time to verify every single claim, but the first two checked out.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Ah, the joys of the legal system. Depending on the attitude of the DA and whether or not its an election year, it might very well be.
This is, of course, assuming the person survives the raid to reach trial.
And for what it's worth, I am armed and if the police raid my apartment in the middle of the night, I probably won't survive the evening because it takes me a few minutes to actually wake up coherently.
But I don't think there is a perfect or easy solution to the problem either.
-Trevor
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
quote:That's one way to duck the issue.
Of course, we can just require the officers to knock, give the people inside a chance to grab weapons if they're so inclined and settle in for a long stand-off.
And we can ignore the time, energy and resources it costs to maintain such an action. Oh and naturally the suspects inside would never think of having a gun battle, so the surrounding civilians are never, ever in any danger from stray bullets.
-Trevor
I think what Xavier's list is demonstrating is how important it is to not assume the raid is going to turn into a gun fight, so we might as well start one first. The no knock policy is pretty much GUARANTEEING a gun fight if the person is armed at all. Rather, unless there is GOOD reason to expect violent resistance, the officers should knock first. Many of those instances that Xavier listed were for marijuana growers--if the police knew anything, they'd know that pot smokers are generally laid-back. Also, many of those instances occurred at the WRONG house. I don't care what percentage those instances are of So-Called Successful raids--it shouldn't be happening at ALL. It's unexcusable.
In summary--the police shouldn't, by assuming it's going to turn into a gun fight, start the very thing they're trying to prevent.
-Katarain
Posted by calaban (Member # 2516) on :
Fbi report on officer deaths and related statistics.
Without doing a full case study on each listed instance, I will concede that people can and do die during these "no knock" raids.
I don't think anyone has ever disputed that claim.
What I do dispute is the idea that putting an end to the "no knock" policy will guarantee the safety and security of the occupants, the police and surrounding neighbors.
-Trevor
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:What I do dispute is the idea that putting an end to the "no knock" policy will guarantee the safety and security of the occupants, the police and surrounding neighbors.
Did either of us ever claim this?
Niether of us think its a good policy. Neither of us said that knocking on the door is a perfect one.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
"Pot smokers are generally laid back."
So we should assume by stereotype and urban legend that drug dealers, who make their money by selling illegal goods and usually have large quantities of both cash and illegal goods that other people might want, won't be interested in protecting their illegal assets by force?
Is that better or worse than racial profiling? The same types of assumptions are made and acted upon accordingly.
-Trevor
Edit: For structure - added a comma.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier:
quote:What I do dispute is the idea that putting an end to the "no knock" policy will guarantee the safety and security of the occupants, the police and surrounding neighbors.
Did either of us ever claim this?
Niether of us think its a good policy. Neither of us said that knocking on the door is a perfect one.
Then I will clarify: while both approaches are potentially dangerous, I believe a "knock first" approach is more dangerous than a "no knock" tactic.
-Trevor
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
I don't advocate an end to the policy... I advocate more caution in deciding to use the method.
Is there a past history with the suspect? What is the nature of the charge? Does the suspect live alone? Are there children present? Is there another method that could be used instead? Is the charge the type that will cause death to other people if the no-knock raid method is not used? (For example, if the person is growing a plant in their home, that probably is not enough to warrant such a use of force.)
Obviously, it's not just suspects and innocent bystanders getting killed during these no-knock raids, but officers as well. That is not acceptable either. I don't want cops to die. But I refuse to blink at other people dying just because they don't wear a uniform. I don't accept that it's just the price we have to pay for whatever it is we're gaining--because I don't think we're gaining anything by the drug war. Except more death. Horrible people become dealers because of the money involved. Make it legal and prescription only--regulate the hell out of drugs--and make them completely unprofitable for the scums of the earth. And get TRUTH out there about their effects, instead of lumping them all together.
-Katarain
Posted by calaban (Member # 2516) on :
Pot smokers are generally laid back when they're baked. When they are not most I know are paranoid and touchy.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Trevor, Well, in this case the stereotype is caused by the effects of the drug itself. It is certainly not true across the board--and I'm not talking about drug dealers anyway. Generally, dealers deal anything and everything and are most likely violent (as I stated in my last post). But there's a difference between real dealers and the casual smoker.
I made my comment based on the accounts in Xavier's list where the raid was for the non-dealing type of smokers.
-Katarain
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
I should also concede that mistakes like "wrong address" or raids based on nothing more than "an informant said" belong entirely to the police.
If you're going to stage a full-scale raid, the least you can do is check the damned address.
To me, that's wholly and entirely unacceptable recklessness.
-Trevor
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
I think my biggest problem is with the laws that "justify" these raids in the first place.
-Katarain
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:Generally, dealers deal anything and everything and are most likely violent (as I stated in my last post). But there's a difference between real dealers and the casual smoker.
What exactly are you basing that on? I've known about 7-10 marijuana dealers in my life (never smoked, but had lots of friends who did) and they all only dealt in marijuana. What makes you think they are always going to be violent? They are just people. People who happen to break the law. Most got tired of paying too much for the pot they smoked, so they grew it themselves and started selling to their friends.
They are not monsters. They are not murderers. Some of them are just kids. The amount of misinformation people have with the drug culture is a testament to how well propaganda works.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
You see, Xavier, I wasn't including marijuana-only "dealers" as drug dealers, because I don't consider them to BE drug dealers.
I was talking about the hard-core dealers. Who will do anything for money.
-Katarain
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
And my opinion of hard-core dealers is based on hollywood movies and television.
As it should be!
-Katarain
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
So let's seperate the nice dealers from the bad ones - we'll start a list so the cops know who aren't really bad and we don't have to worry about just yet and the really icky ones.
After all, if you're all nice and fluffy and not really hurting anyone, it's not really illegal.
Party on dude.
-Trevor
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Hehe. Dude.
Let's just change the laws. That's easier and less silly.
-Katarain
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Are you suggesting by your nice and fluffy comment that they should start going after catnip addicts?
Cause I'm against that.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
Trevor, I thought we were done with the hyberbole when we both clarified our positions.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
*snicker* And give up our "war on drugs?"
Are you kidding? Do you know how many political careers were built on that?
After all, prohibition worked so very well back in the day.
I really want to go to one of the countries with legalized drugs so I can get a perspective on their society and how they view and handle similar issues.
-Trevor
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
To me, the war on drugs is like a war on fat.
It's bad for you. You shouldn't ingest it. It might kill you. It's hurting me because I have to look at you. Evil corporations are getting rich because of the fat trade. It's bad because you're addicted to it. It's bad because I knew a guy who had to be cut out of his house he got addicted so bad. It's bad because it makes you feel good.
-Katarain
Posted by calaban (Member # 2516) on :
Or perhaps your belief in the benign nature of the drug culture is source of a new propaganda.
I have seen friends use pot as a gateway drug. I have seen thier lives disintigrate. I have seen people who "only" smoke pot wast thier life away in a stupor. It's not conjecture when I say these things, it's personal experience and although they may not be violent on ground level, violence is used to procure the substance.
If pot truly was not the gateway drug I have seen it to be, I wouldn't have any trouble with it being legalised. Because it would free resources to combat the harder stuff. But as much as people want to look the other way it hurts, families and individuals alike.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Actually, I'm all for imprisoning catnip addicts. Well, maybe just the one who keeps leaving hairballs in my room.
@Xav - your comment about the "misinformation and propaganda" irked me a tad. I will point out I didn't advocate shooting your benign dealers in the back of the head either - an approach I'm very fond of when dealing with pedophiles and other monsters.
-Trevor
Edit for clarification.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
I wish I had a catnip addict to adopt and take care of. I'd tell the authorities that I was going to help her kick the habit...but secretly, I'd give her catnip anyway.
-Katarain
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Alcohol is the REAL gateway drug.
The only way that marijuana can fairly be said to be a gateway drug is when you consider that because it is illegal, many people get it from dealers who deal OTHER actually HARMFUL drugs and are pressured into trying it.
And I can easily counter your pot smokers who waste their lives with another story of someone I know who is MUCH more productive when he IS smoking. If they're stupid enough to keep on doing something that is NOT addictive and don't do anything with their lives, maybe it's not the plant that's the cause. And maybe just because they're stupid isn't a good enough reason for those who get positive benefits to be denied.
-Katarain
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:it's personal experience and although they may not be violent on ground level, violence is used to procure the substance.
What sort of violence is used to plant a seed in the ground? Its not like the drug comes from Columbia. It comes from some dude's back yard. Or the field a mile behind his house.
quote:@Xav - your comment about the "misinformation and propaganda" irked me a tad. I will point out I didn't advocate shooting your benign dealers in the back of the head either
That comment wasn't directed at you. I was under the mistaken notion that Katarain was saying that marijuana dealers were all violent people who sold anything they could get their hands on. I would say anyone under this notion is a victim of believing government propaganda. Fortunately, no one in this thread has professed this belief.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
And if we're outlawing psychological addictions that prevent us from getting any work done, then we better outlaw Hatrack and quick.
-Katarain
Posted by calaban (Member # 2516) on :
I agree that alchohol is A gateway drug. I know people who started with one or the other.
Actually I've always thought drawing and quartering should be reintroduced for pedophiles. >:}
Maybe a little cruel and unusual would give pause to some of them.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:The only way that marijuana can fairly be said to be a gateway drug is when you consider that because it is illegal, many people get it from dealers who deal OTHER actually HARMFUL drugs and are pressured into trying it.
Wow, that is so totally my argument against those who say marijuana is a gateway drug. I fully believe that if you could get pot at walmart, you would never know anyone who can get you the harder stuff. And THAT is why it will no longer be a gateway drug.
Posted by calaban (Member # 2516) on :
I know somone who is a better worker when smoking as well, I believe in medicinal marajuana for specific cases such as these. It also helps somone I know well and love with bouts of histeria. Generally I haven't seen good effects. Specific cases shouldnt define the rule.
(edited for fat fingers and poor proof reading)
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Well... I am for regulation. Although I wouldn't protest too loudly if they suddenly wanted to sell it at wal-mart.
Basically, I think teenagers are too immature to realize if they need to STOP smoking so they can get stuff done. Although I have known one who realized while he was in high school that it was preventing him from reaching his goals. So he quit. Much to the surprise of his friends. I've known adults who reached the same conclusion. And I've known adults who function better ON it.
I think it should be a personal matter whether or not to smoke, and I'm okay with a doctor being in on that decision.
-Katarain
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
And I have known people who do it as a bit of recreation now and then. To me, this is no different from sitting at home drinking a beer. Well, actually... I think the beer is worse.. But anyway...
Replying to calaban: I would like it if productivity was fit in under the medical clause, but I'm afraid it won't be. (If the medical clause ever goes through.)
I also think it's effective in treating mental illnesses and violent tendencies. It allows patients (probably not ALL--after all, medicine needs to be tailored to the individual) to be able to function on a much higher level than the legal drugs they dope patients up with now.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)