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.
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 686 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
posted
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.
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.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 5413 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
posted
Pot smokers are generally laid back when they're baked. When they are not most I know are paranoid and touchy.
Posts: 686 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 686 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 5413 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
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.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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)
Posts: 686 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
