The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old May 29, 2011, 05:43 AM   #151
Glenn Dee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 9, 2009
Location: South Florida
Posts: 1,487
I suggest anyone having any questions about the supposedly botched raid on a former marine's home where he as killed by SWAT go to Police.com website. It seems there was an officer wearing a helmet-cam. If this is true, and correct... The blame cant be placed on the police. There there would be no question of who was coming through the door.
Glenn Dee is offline  
Old May 29, 2011, 11:56 AM   #152
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,091
Because he had a helmet cam? Or because the footage itself left no doubt?
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old May 29, 2011, 11:59 AM   #153
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,091
Helmet cams do nothing to reassure citizens that the individuals breaking down their door are not impersonating officers, a common ploy of home invaders. Just saying.
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old May 29, 2011, 12:18 PM   #154
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
Glenn Dee, regardless of whether he knew they were really the police, do you think it was normal for them to do a no-knock on a house that had at least one child or infant present?

That's my issue with this particular event.
MLeake is offline  
Old May 29, 2011, 01:48 PM   #155
Eghad
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 28, 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,231
Helmet cams show what happened but do not prove intent or what they were thinking. I saw the video and to me it sounded like someones car alarm went off when they put the siren on for 8-10 seconds. I heard them on the outside but it doesn't prove you could hear them on the inside of a house. I am a retired veteran with bad hearing who can't hear the wife good from 4 feet away.

Just the small part of the raid I saw on the video looked like a charlie foxtrot in action.

It was not wise for the citizen to do what he did either by pointing a weapon at the police. The best advice given in this thread would have been to be around a corner and ask who it is.

The police didn't help there cause when they said he shot at them and misinformed the public and then had to change the story.

This case needs a healty dose of sunlight to determine what happened to ensure we improve things for citizens and the police and we prevent it from happening again.
__________________
Have a nice day at the range

NRA Life Member

Last edited by Eghad; May 29, 2011 at 01:56 PM.
Eghad is offline  
Old May 29, 2011, 02:22 PM   #156
Glenn Dee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 9, 2009
Location: South Florida
Posts: 1,487
According to the film allegedly from an officers helmet cam... The police went well out of their way for the homeowner to know who it was...
First off.. the police sounded their sirens before making entry. Then they did knock and announce... Twice. This according to the film. And it wasnt in the dark of night... it was bright sunshine.

If this information is correct. I for one have been had.
Glenn Dee is offline  
Old May 29, 2011, 02:50 PM   #157
Glenn Dee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 9, 2009
Location: South Florida
Posts: 1,487
OK I got it... Go to Policeone.com Select most watched... chose helmetcam deadly swat video... or something like that. Watch the video and decide for yourselves.
Glenn Dee is offline  
Old May 29, 2011, 07:21 PM   #158
Eghad
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 28, 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,231
If everything is so right then why did the Police say the guy shot at them? Then had to rescind the statement when it was found out that the gun was still on safe and had never been fired?

An investigation from an independent party would be a good idea.
__________________
Have a nice day at the range

NRA Life Member
Eghad is offline  
Old May 29, 2011, 08:20 PM   #159
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,510
Glenn Dee, regardless of what the helmet cam shows, let us not lose sight of the end results of this search warrant "service": This was (remember), a search warrant, for an address ... it was not an arrest warrant for a named individual. By electing to serve this SEARCH warrant when they did and in the way they did, they created a situation that got the male resident killed, blatantly endangered the lives of an unarmed woman and small child ... and when they finally made their search they found ... NOTHING illegal.

How could justice or public safety possibly have been served by this action?

Why was it necessary (actually, it WASN'T necessary, so why did they choose) to execute the search when the guy was known to be home, since they knew when and where he worked and could easily have served the warrant when just the wife was home -- or done a smash-and-grab while the wife was at the supermarket?
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old May 29, 2011, 09:36 PM   #160
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,318
Hmmmm ... We haven't been talking about the Indiana High Court ruling in some time. We've drifted from warrants in general (this was more on topic than what followed), over to no-knocks in general, and now a specific case in AZ.

I'll give it one shot to get back on topic, exactly because everyone's been very good at keeping the discussion civil.
Al Norris is offline  
Old May 30, 2011, 07:05 AM   #161
Conn. Trooper
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 12, 2007
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 530
Getting back to Indiana, I believe what the court was trying to do was say you fight it in court, not on the street.

You may believe the police are wrong, or the warrant is incorrect, and you may be correct. But if you are wrong, and someone (cops or otherwise) gets hurt, you can't take that back and say "Woops, sorry I shot you, I thought you had the wrong house." Fight it in court, not on the street.
Conn. Trooper is offline  
Old May 31, 2011, 09:39 AM   #162
artsmom
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 24, 2005
Location: Nebraska
Posts: 314
Quote:
Honestly, resisting law enforcement, whether you believe their entry is legal or not, seems like a rather foolhardy exercise to me anyway
The same could have been said about the Minutemen who assembled at Lexington and Concord. Some issues are so important that personal safety becomes a secondary concern.
artsmom is offline  
Old May 31, 2011, 02:40 PM   #163
Wagonman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 11, 2008
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 987
We aren't facing widespread abridgment of our rights without redress of our grievances as we were in Concord.
Wagonman is offline  
Old May 31, 2011, 02:54 PM   #164
aarondhgraham
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 1, 2009
Location: Stillwater, OKlahoma
Posts: 7,118
Actually, we are,,,

Well not "we" as I don't live there.

Quote:
We aren't facing widespread abridgment of our rights without redress of our grievances as we were in Concord.
This is like the Cardinal who said,,,
"Kill them all, let God sort out the sinners."

Whether we have redress to sue in court makes no difference to the fact that their state supreme court has just granted a Carte Blanche to any officer or agency who wants to abuse the system.

In the vein of thinking that they wanted to make it easier for officers to catch bad guys,,,
They have created an environment that simply begs for abuse to happen.

Aarond
__________________
Caje: The coward dies a thousand times, the brave only once.
Kirby: That's about all it takes, ain't it?
Combat: "A Silent Cry"
Aarond is good,,, Aarond is wise,,, Always trust Aarond! (most of the time)
aarondhgraham is offline  
Old May 31, 2011, 03:08 PM   #165
Eghad
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 28, 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,231
The Court in Indiana was making bad precedent that runs contrary to the Fourth Amendment when he stated that the Police needed no reason to search a home.

Even the Sheriff in Indiana said he was going to ask people to search places. I bet most of the police departments are going to follow the old policies for searches. Once this gets out of the state of Indiana in a case I can not see it standing.
__________________
Have a nice day at the range

NRA Life Member
Eghad is offline  
Old May 31, 2011, 03:43 PM   #166
artsmom
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 24, 2005
Location: Nebraska
Posts: 314
Quote:
We aren't facing widespread abridgment of our rights without redress of our grievances as we were in Concord.
I'll have to disagree. Armed men entered someone's home illegally, by force and a court of law said that "public policy" preempts the guarantees made by the Constitution. To me, that's abridgment and no redress.

I won't comment further, as it is a difference of opinion of whether a line has been crossed, and one cannot successfully argue opinions.
artsmom is offline  
Old May 31, 2011, 04:40 PM   #167
Wagonman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 11, 2008
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 987
There is redress of grievances in criminal and civil court, any assertations to the contrary are erroneous.

I don't neccessarily agree with the Indiana decision, still digesting it. My guess is that the SCOTUS will overturn as too over reaching. There is already case law that supports Coppers going into houses against the wishes of occupants with good reason.
Wagonman is offline  
Old May 31, 2011, 07:39 PM   #168
artsmom
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 24, 2005
Location: Nebraska
Posts: 314
Quote:
There is redress of grievances in criminal and civil court, any assertations to the contrary are erroneous.
Jose Guerena will get no redress of grievances in criminal or civil court, and that assertation is NOT in error.

In the end this matter will be taken up and sorted out by a much higher authority than any crafted here on this earth, so I will leave the matter up to Him.
artsmom is offline  
Old May 31, 2011, 07:46 PM   #169
Wagonman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 11, 2008
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 987
Now you are splitting hairs. If he had complied with Police commands he would have said redress. you present yourself as a threat to a Police Officer......no matter how "right" you are, you have yourself to blame for bad consequences.
Wagonman is offline  
Old May 31, 2011, 07:49 PM   #170
hogdogs
Staff In Memoriam
 
Join Date: October 31, 2007
Location: Western Florida panhandle
Posts: 11,069
And there is no repairing the loss of respect one would rightfully have after their rights were trampled on. If it occurred to me and no gun play was involved... I promise that I would have no reason to give the slightest respect to the legal sytem nor would my wife or children. And they would have to trample my first amendment rights to keep me from voicing my feelings to all i can. I also promise that the other 3 would do the same.

Can law enforcement afford to lose ALL semblance of respect from the folks who had their rights raped?

If they think they might have smelled weed here... they may have smelled something but my legally purchased incense isn't anything they need to kick my door in for. And when the 5 dogs attack as they dang well better... they better keep their guns in the holsters.

The issue is that accidental or intentional abuse is likely. And I would think that a FELONY would be the minimum they can kick a door in over... Not a simple .33 gram misdemeanor pot possession SUSPICION!

Brent
hogdogs is offline  
Old June 1, 2011, 12:06 AM   #171
artsmom
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 24, 2005
Location: Nebraska
Posts: 314
Quote:
no matter how "right" you are, you have yourself to blame
That is more damning than anything I could possibly say...

...wow...
artsmom is offline  
Old June 1, 2011, 03:11 PM   #172
Conn. Trooper
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 12, 2007
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 530
Actually, it's the truth. Sorry you don't see it that way. He was a threat to officers, he made that choice. He may be in the right, he may be in the wrong. He's still dead. If he didn't present a threat to officers, he would be around today to sue, file complaints, whatever he felt was best to address the issue.

Let me say that again, HE chose his actions. The officers responded to the actions he took.
Conn. Trooper is offline  
Old June 1, 2011, 03:13 PM   #173
Conn. Trooper
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 12, 2007
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 530
And there is no repairing the loss of respect one would rightfully have after their rights were trampled on. If it occurred to me and no gun play was involved... I promise that I would have no reason to give the slightest respect to the legal sytem nor would my wife or children. And they would have to trample my first amendment rights to keep me from voicing my feelings to all i can. I also promise that the other 3 would do the same.

Can law enforcement afford to lose ALL semblance of respect from the folks who had their rights raped?

If they think they might have smelled weed here... they may have smelled something but my legally purchased incense isn't anything they need to kick my door in for. And when the 5 dogs attack as they dang well better... they better keep their guns in the holsters.

The issue is that accidental or intentional abuse is likely. And I would think that a FELONY would be the minimum they can kick a door in over... Not a simple .33 gram misdemeanor pot possession SUSPICION!

Brent
__________________


Am I the only one that has no clue what you are trying to say here?
Conn. Trooper is offline  
Old June 1, 2011, 04:56 PM   #174
aarondhgraham
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 1, 2009
Location: Stillwater, OKlahoma
Posts: 7,118
Quote:
The officers responded to the actions he took.
And killed a man in the process,,,
How can any sane citizen abide by that?

They were in the wrong house,,,
He was defending against an invasion,,,
How can anyone defend that action by saying he got what his actions deserved?

When I am at my home,,,
And I am not breaking (or have broken) any laws,,,
And someone breaks into my home just what am I supposed to think?

Am I supposed to stop any defensive action and say to myself,,,
Self, this might be a bunch of cops with the wrong address,,,
I better wait and see because I don't want to get shot.

No way in heck (I really wanted to use a stronger word) is that what a law abiding citizen is going to think.

The legal system really desires to turn the citizenry into sheeple,,,
All under the premise that officer safety is more important than constitutional rights.

No one is going to like this,,,
But this is exactly how Nazi Germany got started.

Aarond
__________________
Caje: The coward dies a thousand times, the brave only once.
Kirby: That's about all it takes, ain't it?
Combat: "A Silent Cry"
Aarond is good,,, Aarond is wise,,, Always trust Aarond! (most of the time)
aarondhgraham is offline  
Old June 1, 2011, 06:20 PM   #175
Edward429451
Junior member
 
Join Date: November 12, 2000
Location: Colorado Springs, Colorado
Posts: 9,494
Looking at old films of Nazi Stormtroopers or SS and compare them to a typical episode of COPS and I see that our cops are much more rough on citizenry than the SS was. Everybody gets handcuffed? Whats with that? Very rude.
Edward429451 is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:58 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.14746 seconds with 7 queries