And they say we are the ones who don't need hi-cap mags...

[bruels]

The Lubbock Police Department has released copies of the individual officer's reports on the Sgt. Cox Shooting. I am surprised they did this, but I imagine they took the stance the reports will show up in court eventually.

Lubbock Swat Officer Reports

[KnoxVol]

..those reports are some interesting reading. I read Officer one and two and they stated PLAINLY that the gunfire was 1) from inside and 2.) from the "barricaded suspect"....

This should get very interesting very quickly.

[Darkangel]

A DV call...............man barricades himself into a house. Neighbour tell police the man "has guns". Swat arrives and dispurses around house. Man will not respond to them.
The Swat team does a "Break and rake". While yelling into the house no one is seen, but a bullet comes through the side of the house and hits the LEO in the neck, killing him.
The SWAT officers "believe" the gun fire is comming from inside the house and return fire, blindly, on a subject they have not seen. In fact the Swat LEO's are in a cross fire position where they are returning fire on each other. In the end over 350 rounds are fired, one LEO is dead, one LEO is wounded, One perpatrator is wounded.
The perpatrator had no gun?
Several searches of the house has produced no weapon.
Perpatrator is released, LEO death result of friendly fire.
WOW!...is this a cluster or what?
So.......who positioned the SWAT team? Who fired the shot?
How many Law Suites will this incident cause?
Why did they relieve the Chief, and not the SWAT CO?
later
DA

[IamNOTaNUT]

LawDog -

You were set up on this one by the "every cop is a JBT" crowd. Hang in their buddy.

Everyone-

LawDog responded to a seamingly reasonable request to comment because he has a reputation of telling it like it is.

LawDog points out that he does not have complete information, and that none of us do either. He gave a reasonable answer based on the conditions set forth in his speculation.

Instead of taking this as an opportunity to learn from someone who has BTDT, people decide to slam LawDog. What the heck is going on here?????

[bruels]

First of all, I think the news reports were that there were 369 holes in the house, not rounds fired.

Second, the police officer's reports are interesting in that some officers reported their conclusions as facts. I have taught report writing for law enforcement officers and one of the things I stressed over and over is to only report what you saw, heard, smelled, tasted, touched, or what someone else told you, etc..

Third, I am surprised the officers related that orders were given to them, but failed to identify who gave the orders. This is very confusing when one tries to reconstruct what happened. Accountability is easily a casualty when this happens.

Fourth, the "suspect" did have guns, it was just that no one could find any evidence they were fired.

Fifth, I am very interested in the concept of suppressing fire as it relates to this incident and Texas law.

This story will go on for a long time.

Sounds like Lubbock SWAT is getting training from the well-known "Polish firing squad".

[Bobbalouie]

I suppose the thing that bothers me the most in reading the reports is that no-one takes responsibility for that first round. Where is the "Saw suspect raise a pistol and shot him in self-defense"? From where I sit, one round FROM A POLICEMAN triggered the shooting and somewhere around 368 of the rounds were then inevitable, because of attitude, approach, and strategy.

It appears that this and possibly more of these situations are being run only one step away from the "terminate with extreme prejudice" rule of engagement: Anyone accused in a similar manner and associated with similar intel (owning guns) is placed in a free-fire zone. Only one response (abject surrender) will give the suspect an even chance at not having his right to life forceably removed.

When you combine the possibilities of over-response in the above scenario with the oft-repeated "ooops, wrong address for the no-knock" scenario, I believe you are moving into a realm of police action at which the founding fathers would certainly be agast.

At what point are police departments going to become unwilling to risk the lives of innocents in order to carry out urban-assault-style problem-solving? Is the risk of being sued for under-response less tollerable to a PD than the risk of unjustifiably taking a life? It's beginning to look like it. Couldn't we budget to allow four officers with semi-auto rifles, brown bag lunches, and thermoses of coffee spend twice as much time at the scene letting the situtation calm down? Whatever happened to the negotiation tactic of just boring them 'til they give up?

I'm all for every police officer going home at the end of every night. Unfortunately, it appears the strategies and tactics being employed have come full circle. If it weren't enough that these methods threaten both innocent civilians and low-violence-order perps, they now threaten the policemen who use them.

Yes, mistakes were made. They always will be.

[Darkangel]

Any more information come out about this cluster?
thanks
DA

[zot]

waiting would have saved a officers life, what was the rush to
enter? sounds like waco or ruby ridge mentality! lucky the cops
didn't cover it up and send a innocent man to prison for life or death penality. nazi tactics

[Nanaimo Barr]

based on what little was in the media speculations, I find it interesting that...

"Morgan said Robinson fired as many as 30 rounds through a wall of his house during the two minute shootout."

we have a duly authorized Police Spokesman offering information that was less than accurate.

shouldn't that be a subject of concern? doesn't that have at least the appearence of cover up of some sort?

we may not have been there, and I won't second guess the events, but we do know that a Police Officer was less than honest to the people he works for.

NB

[F4GIB]

Law Dog keeps harping that "he wouldn't talk to the police." NOT TRUE. see below.


Surrender deal botched
Phone call to negotiator unanswered
By LINDA KANE
Lubbock Avalanche-Journal
August 2, 2001

Richard Robinson said Wednesday that he already had agreed with a negotiator to come out of his South Lubbock home when gunfire erupted and an officer was fatally shot July 13.
Robinson said the negotiator told him to take his time and to call the negotiator’s cell phone when Robinson was ready to leave his home. When Robinson made the call, however, nobody answered, he said.
Robinson’s attorney, Daniel W. Hurley, said Wednesday he had spoken with the negotiator July 13, and they had agreed Robinson would be taken to a hospital for psychological treatment and not to jail.
After he made the unsuccessful call to the negotiator, Robinson went and sat on his couch, he said.
Hurley said he didn’t know why the phone call reportedly didn’t go through.
The negotiator called again, but gunfire erupted as Robinson walked from his living room to the kitchen to answer the phone, Robinson said. “The phone started ringing and then windows started breaking, and I just jumped up and said, ‘What’s going on?’ and that’s when they just started shooting,” he said.
Robinson was shot in the back as he walked from the living room to the kitchen, he said.
He said officers were yelling and asked what he had in his hand. “I said, ‘the (expletive removed) phone’,” Robinson said.
The incident began about five hours earlier, following a fight between Robinson, 47, and his wife, Laura, 48.
The Fire Department arrived after Robinson began burning furniture in his front yard, and then the SWAT team was called in. Laura Robinson and the couple’s children were not in the home when the SWAT team arrived.
Richard Robinson and Hurley contend that no one asked Robinson to leave his house. “Nobody ever came to the door to ask him to come out,” Hurley said. “When the SWAT team arrived at around noon, Dick could see that it was a serious deal.”
Sgt. Kevin Cox, 38, was shot in the head during the SWAT maneuver at Robinson’s home at 3229 87th St.
In police reports filed with court papers, SWAT officers said they believed Robinson opened fire from inside the house.
According to a search warrant, police seized 13 guns, ammunition and books about weapons. All the guns were unloaded and in a closet during the episode.
Police initially charged Robinson with capital murder in the officer’s death, but determined a week later that he didn’t shoot Cox. The charges were dropped.
An investigation is under way to determine what prompted the gunfire and who fired the fatal shot.
Police Chief Ken Walker was placed on paid administrative leave July 23 pending the outcome of the investigation.
It was three days after the shooting that Robinson first learned of the officer’s death from Hurley. “I felt for him. I’m sure he was a good man,” Robinson said.
Robinson said he felt helpless when he learned he’d been accused of killing Cox. “I was convicted and hung,” he said. “I knew I was innocent, but I mean, it’s a pretty helpless situation.” He added, “I just thought, ‘Man, that man died and I was going to pay for it.’ “
The hospital stay was extremely uncomfortable because of his wounds and because he was handcuffed to a bed for five days, Robinson said. He said he urinated on himself at least once because he couldn’t contact a health care worker.
It was 10 minutes before Robinson was to meet with his family ­ the first time since the fatal shooting a week earlier ­ that Robinson learned the charges against him had been dropped. “I just kept telling them over and over, ‘I didn’t kill that man. I didn’t kill him,’ “ he said. When Hurley told him the charges against him were being dropped, Robinson said, “This better not be a joke.”
Robinson said he’d been told by Hurley that he could have spent up to a year in jail before his case went to trial. “I didn’t know if I could make it,” Robinson said.
Hurley said he believes the police knew within three days of the shooting that Robinson wasn’t the triggerman who killed Cox.
“I’m not sure why it took a week for them to decide that Dick hadn’t fired any of those weapons,” Hurley said. “But, I respect and admire the courage of Bill Sowder (Lubbock County district attorney) for making sure that the right thing was done. “... I hope that we’ll learn the whole story,” he said.
City and law enforcement authorities have remained tight-lipped about the investigation.
“It’s a miracle that there weren’t a lot more people shot and killed in this incident,” Hurley said.
The Robinsons said they didn’t understand why the SWAT team was brought in after a domestic disturbance. “We never knew it would turn out like this,” Laura Robinson said.
Now the couple is turning their attention to rebuilding their lives. “We’ve got a lot of issues to work through,” she said. The couple dated for five years before marrying 21 years ago. They met through a friend while playing golf, Laura Robinson said. They have two daughters and one son who range in age from 9 to 18.
Their house is in shambles, and many personal items are riddled with bullet holes, the Robinsons said. Gunfire damaged the walls, clothing, mattresses and furniture, they said.
Perhaps more than 100 rounds exploded during two to three minutes after SWAT officers approached Robinson’s home and broke out windows on the east and west sides. The tactic, known as a break and rake, was used to improve visibility into the house and make an entry point for tear gas. * * *
The Robinsons likely will sell their house, they said. Their youngest daughter is scared to return to her bedroom, they said.
Robinson said he became depressed after losing his motor repair shop a year ago. His father then died, and he became distraught on July 13 when he thought he might lose his wife and children, too, he said.
Laura Robinson said she had been urging him to seek treatment for depression and fought with him prior to the shooting because he wasn’t seeking help.
It’s unclear whether Robinson will face criminal charges stemming from the incident, Hurley said. And, thus far, Robinson has indicated he doesn’t want to sue any agencies involved, Hurley said. * * *
A bullet remains lodged in Robinson’s abdomen, and he continues to seek medical treatment, he said. He also suffered a wound to his left side where another bullet may have grazed him.
The Robinsons became emotional several times throughout the interview Wednesday with The Avalanche-Journal. They were especially distraught when discussing the Cox family. Cox left behind a wife and two children. “We think about them every day,” Laura Robinson said. “We hope that they have the strength to go on.”
Robinson added, “Ain’t no words you can say that will bring him back. “A life was lost at my house. I hated it, but I didn’t pull the trigger.”

[LawDog]

Law Dog keeps harping that "he wouldn't talk to the police." NOT TRUE. see below.

Actually, I said that he refused to talk to the first responding officers, my quotes:

plus the subject refusing to deal with the responding officers ... -- that is a reason for a SWAT team

was refusing to talk to the officers on the scene ... so they were forced to go to the next step [SWAT] to try to resolve the situation

The article you posted deals with the subject talking to the SWAT negotiator, I was "harping" as you so charmingly put it, on the fact that I am of the understanding that the subject refused to talk to the officers who initially responded to the call.

Your article deals with the SWAT negotiators.

I was talking (or harping) about the officers who first responded to the scene.

There's a difference.

LawDog

[bastiat]

There's an interesting take on lewrockwell.com -http://www.lewrockwell.com/elkins/elkins47.html

Charges against Robinson have been dropped and the Lubbock police department is in disarray, with Police Chief Ken Walker suspended. Charges of an attempted cover up swirl through the community, and a copy of Walker's 2000 job review cited "Aggressiveness of the SWAT team" as an area of concern.

Also, the homeowner was unemployed because the state took the property his business was on through the wonderful policy of 'emminent domain'.

I've never seen any accusation of domestic violence, merely a domestic dispute, unless you count burning some of your property violence.

I don't have a problem with swat teams, just the overuse of them. Because I've read too many stories where swat teams or tactics were used and an innocent civillian died. When something like that happens, too often nothing happens to the responsibile party because they 'were following proper procedures'. This time, an officer was killed, and we got to see how quick the police were to go after the innocent homeowner and how they refused to accept the possibility that they screwed up until the FBI proved it to them:

Official statements early on downplayed the friendly fire possibility.

"That is so baseless and contrary to the evidence that it's an absolute insult to Kevin Cox's memory," police spokesman Bill Morgan told local reporters early this week.

"That's an absolute affront to the guys that have to live with the memory of having Kevin slain in front of them."
Now, however, police have been forced to abandon that tactic, and disturbing questions have arisen about what really happened, and the police actions that followed.

You can debate either side of this, but the real question is: would you want a swat team showing up in battle gear, with armored personnel carriers, full auto weapons, and flammable CS gas because you had an argument with your significant other that got out of hand?

[LawDog]

This time, an officer was killed, and we got to see how quick the police were to go after the innocent homeowner and how they refused to accept the possibility that they screwed up until the FBI proved it to them:

Now, just hold the cotton-picking phone here.

[The FBI's] Bailey did say the tests confirmed the investigation of local police, and she lauded LPD's thoroughness in the case.

This is from the first post in this thread. Read the red part again. The part about "confirming the investigation of local police".

Just where do you come up with LPD "refusing to accept the possibility that they screwed up"?

LawDog

[1 Patriot-of-many]

LOL Lawdawg you'd defend Joseph Goebbles himself if he worked in your line of work it seems......Face the facts,some of those police officers and spokesmen themselves blamed and convicted in the media this guy for a death one of THEM committed because they were so hot to try out their new weapons on their "civilian"
enemy.
I have immense respect for the cops who rather then cover up the facts and convict a guy they know was innocent,went against the grain and did what was right.I don't hate cops in general,only those who like the politicians swear alleigance and then make it their first order of business to **** on the Bill of Rights.

You seem to have an issue about a mere civilian refusing to talk to you....Well I'll tell you something you should already know.It's part of our bill of rights.You are not supreme as an officer OF THE LAW.You are merely a civilian as we also are,and you are our servant,if you want to get down to the facts.YOU are not our commander.You are not superior to the populous(though many officers think so)...You are there to keep the peace through legitimate constitutional means.Which doesn't involve firing machineguns into a target you can't even see,for gods sake.Ever hear of fire discipline???Maybe everyone involved in the fiasco needs either a MAJOR refresher course at the least,or termination which should be warranted.....
Frankly you guys deserve NO respect when you attempt to justify these kinds of action.....I hope this guy wakes up and sues the **** out of that police department....Maybe next time the officers responding will use some sense rather than their Mp5's......

[bastiat]

Just where do you come up with LPD "refusing to accept the possibility that they screwed up"?

LawDog

Umm, the police spokesman? http://sanantoniolightning.com/lubb1.html

"That is so baseless and contrary to the evidence that it's an absolute insult to Kevin Cox's memory," police spokesman Bill Morgan told local reporters early this week.

"That's an absolute affront to the guys that have to live with the memory of having Kevin slain in front of them."
Now, however, police have been forced to abandon that tactic, and disturbing questions have arisen about what really happened, and the police actions that followed.

They may have been investigating internally (which I'm sure they'd be doing anyway - a policeman was killed), but publicly, for at least 5 days, Robinson WAS the killer, according to the mouthpiece for the force.

http://www.lubbockonline.com/stories...02010028.shtml

Hurley said he believes the police knew within three days of the shooting that Robinson wasn't the triggerman who killed Cox.

''I'm not sure why it took a week for them to decide that Dick hadn't fired any of those weapons,'' Hurley said. ''But, I respect and admire the courage of Bill Sowder (Lubbock County district attorney) for making sure that the right thing was done.

And this is a quote from you earlier:

I have no problem with the break-and-rake that Officer Cox did. They broke out a window, moved the shutters out of the way and were attempting to talk to the subject from outside the residence via the window.

Contradicted by this:

Richard Robinson said Wednesday that he already had agreed with a negotiator to come out of his South Lubbock home when gunfire erupted and an officer was fatally shot July 13.

Robinson said the negotiator told him to take his time and to call the negotiator's cell phone when Robinson was ready to leave his home. When Robinson made the call, however, nobody answered, he said.

...The negotiator called again, but gunfire erupted as Robinson walked from his living room to the kitchen to answer the phone, Robinson said.

Why was officer cox was doing a break and rake in order to talk to the subject through the window, when a negotiator was already talking to him on the phone? Sounds like one hand didn't know what the other was doing.

Police are human, meaning they are fallible. When they do something right, they should be commended. When they make mistakes, no matter how perfect we'd like to think should be, they need to be held accountable, otherwise there's not a lot of incentive to improve.

The more information I see on this, the more it looks like the reason swat was used was 'because we have a swat team'. Combine that with the errors that were made, the potential for tragedy multiplies. When you swing a bigger hammer, you're going to make bigger mistakes.

[LawDog]

No, I would not defend Goebbles. Period.

You seem to have an issue about a mere civilian refusing to talk to you....Well I'll tell you something you should already know.It's part of our bill of rights.

Okay, homework for tonight: Bearing in mind that when I say "talking to me" I am not interrogating you, nor am I seeking to trick you into testifying against yourself -- I am merely seeking your side of the story. Keeping that in mind, show me the relevant passage in the Bill of Rights you reference in the above quote.

Which doesn't involve firing machineguns into a target you can't even see,for gods sake.Ever hear of fire discipline???

I think the blind firing was a lousy tactic, but if you ever stumble into a crossfire you'll probably wind up blind firing as well. The trick is not to wind up in the cross-fire -- something I seem to recall pointing out.

Yes, I have heard of fire discipline. I also know that when you've got bullets cracking around your ears, chewing up the scenery you are trying to get under, and your buddy is dying in a pool of his own blood -- the natural human tendency is to spray-and-pray. It's not a good tactic, but it is a human one.

They may have been investigating internally (which I'm sure they'd be doing anyway - a policeman was killed), but publicly, for at least 5 days, Robinson WAS the killer, according to the mouthpiece for the force.

And, when their investigation showed he was not the shooter, they turned him loose with an apology.

So where is the 'forcing' by the FBI?

Why was officer cox was doing a break and rake in order to talk to the subject through the window, when a negotiator was already talking to him on the phone?

At the time I posted my analysis of the action, I did not know about the phone calls between Mr. Robinson and the negotiator.

However, in your quote above that line, Mr. Robinson clearly states that he tried to call the negotiator back, but couldn't get through. There may have been a communications break down, in which case you bypass the phone system: the break-and-rake.

When they make mistakes, no matter how perfect we'd like to think should be, they need to be held accountable, otherwise there's not a lot of incentive to improve.

I agree, but let's ding the person making the mistakes, hmm? And let's not do the dinging before we have all the evidence.

The more information I see on this, the more it looks like the reason swat was used was 'because we have a swat team'.

That is a definent possibility; but there are other possiblities as well. And it does behoove us to consider those other possiblities.

LawDog

[Jeff Thomas]

Personally, I wouldn't think twice about suing in a case like this. I'd be interviewing lawyers right now.

I do find it notable that part of this arose from the state's seizure of private property. I wish I could say I was surprised.

We're not a police state yet. There are still honest people in government who will not stand for this kind of murderous behavior. Thank goodness. However, the more of this foolishness we see, the more I fear we are sliding down a dangerous slope.

I believe SWAT is overused, and it is a symptom of the War on Some Drugs, excess taxation producing too many resources for LEO's, and the increased militarization of LEO's. If we keep it up (along with too easy rationalizations of this kind of behavior), we'll keep increasing the chasm between LEO's and their communities. That's foolish, IMHO.

I have the impression that some LEO's won't be satisfied until every burg in America has it's own SWAT team, M-16's, tanks and who knows what else.

Regards from AZ

[1 Patriot-of-many]

"Okay, homework for tonight: Bearing in mind that when I say "talking to me" I am not interrogating you, nor am I seeking to trick you into testifying against yourself -- I am merely seeking your side of the story. Keeping that in mind, show me the relevant passage in the Bill of Rights you reference in the above quote."

Now that is funny.....You know as well as I do anything said to an officer can and will be used against you,regardless of the "talking".....Whether it be enlarging an investigation or formal interrogation.

How about this...You show me exactly where in the Constitution you have the power and right to put hundreds of rounds into a citizens property attempting to assasinate and deprive them of life,liberty,and the pursuit of happiness?
Then to top it off demonize them as the standard tactic of law enforcement which amounts to nothing less then slander.
Keep in mind this is over someone burning their own property....

Where exactly is that part? I sure as hell missed it.
You also have no right to force any citizen to open their mouth whether it be to say HI or answer any question you pose....I have the right to not say boo to you or any officer if I so chose.
Like I said you seem to have more of a problem that someone didn't bow down to your "superiority".If you think the populace gives up their right to silence whenever an officer insists on "talking" to them,your deeper into the policestate mindset than I thought.I've seen some of your posts,and believe you to be a moral officer,but when I see statements that we HAVE to talk to you,it makes me really wonder.

When you can show me I'm legally obligated to answer you anytime YOU want,I'll say I was wrong.

[LawDog]

When you can show me I'm legally obligated to answer you anytime YOU want,I'll say I was wrong.

Not anytime, no. During the investigation of a crime, or possible crime (such as the domestic crime we have here), yes.

The Constitution has nothing in it regarding compelling testimony from witnesses, therefore we look at the Tenth Amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Okay, nothing in the Constitution regarding compelling witnesses to testify, this happened in Texas so, following the Tenth Amendment, let us check Texas Law.

We get a bingo hit right off the bat: Chapter 38 of the Texas Penal Code: 38.02 Failure to Identify

§ 38.02. Failure to Identify

(a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally refuses to give his name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has lawfully arrested the person and requested the information.

(b) A person commits an offense if he intentionally gives a false or fictitious name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has:

(1) lawfully arrested the person;

(2) lawfully detained the person; or

(3) requested the information from a person that the peace officer has good cause to believe is a witness to a criminal offense.

Hmm. Kind of iffy there, and it's restricted to name, DOB and address. Anything else?

A little further down in the same chapter we find:

§ 38.15. Interference With Public Duties

(a) A person commits an offense if the person with criminal negligence interrupts, disrupts, impedes, or otherwise interferes with:

(1) a peace officer while the peace officer is performing a duty or exercising authority imposed or granted by law;

Ouch. ...impedes, or otherwise interferes with a peace officer while the peace officer is performing a duty ... imposed or granted by law.

My, my, my. Is the investigation of a crime (domestic violence, in this case) by a peace officer "...a duty ... imposed or granted by law."?

Yeppers.

Would a reasonable man believe that the failure of a witness to answer questions about the crime impede or otherwise interfere with the investigation of that crime?

Oh, yeah.

Ergo, Mr. Robinson, as a witness, was obligated to answer questions regrading the crime the officers were investigating.

Once he became a suspect in the crime, (per the Fifth Amendment) he was no longer obligated to answer those questions -- but he would not become a suspect until both sides of the story were heard.

LawDog

[Zander]

"Yeppers." -- LawDog

Horse manure.

Do yourself and your fine reputation on this board a favor by dropping this ridiculous and desperate line of rationalization.

There is no justification in this case for the outrageous and criminal behavior of a special unit [apparently with $^&%%# training] run amok.

And please...stop the accusation of DV; the man simply lit a bonfire in his front yard...nothing more, nothing less.

A good man is dead as the result of the 'us v. them' mentality so prevalent in such "special" teams these days. Citizens, including the falsely accused, deserve nothing less than a full investigation. The guilty shouldn't be given blanket immunity simply because they happened to have badges.

If and when found guilty, let the perpetrators suffer the consequence: hang 'em in public.

[LawDog]

*sigh*

One patriot, if you have any more questions about the legal right to compel testimony from witnesses, send me an e-mail, or use the private message function.

Jeff, next time you see me developing the need to analyze a police operation, thump me over the head until the need passes.

I am officially out of this thread.

LawDog

[Hal]

Wow!
Some thread. The title was a bit misleading, and I bypassed it. One side I haven't seen presented here is the impact of a Domestic Violence conviction. Robinson had quite a bit of money tied up in what, 35 guns? I highly doubt that they were all Lorcin's. I have to wonder if the original officers (the ones the day(s) before the SWAT raid), didn't decide to cut Robinson a break and not give him a ride to the courthouse where he could plead out to a very minor charge, pay a small fine, and get on with his life? It's possible, but I wonder how probable? Had he been given a few hours in the hoose-gow to simmer down maybe,,,,,,,

[Skyhawk]

In this case, the cops are clearly out-of-control (again) and needed to be reeled in. In their zeal to “arrest somebody” a person was killed (another cop).

The coming future (already here).

Escalating militarization of police forces + Trampling on the Bill of Rights = MORE DEAD COPS

It’s as simple as that.

Skyhawk

[1 Patriot-of-many]

LawDawg:Thanks for the stimulating conversation,but I still don't agree with you,and while I don't hate cops per se as my stance could be interpreted I jealously guard the Bill of Rights which I'm sure even you will admit more than ever is trampled on by those who swear to uphold and defend as well as those who write the law.

When you send a swat team to this guys house,he is indeed a suspect.Whether or not he was arrested is a mute point.
I would love to see him charged with violating the statutes you cited.You and I both know he would not be found guilty.
You as an officer also know anything a potential suspect during an initial investigation says, can and often does result in them being arrested.Ergo 5th amendment defense is not limited to a courtroom setting.

I'm done with this thread also,and in parting want to thank all the officers who indeed put there lives on the line to protect and serve constitutionally everyday.For those who violate that trust,they deserve the ridicule of the populace.

While I don't know you Lawdawg,I respect the fact you are even taking the time to interact on this board as many LEO's wouldn't even bother with mere "civilians".This tells me at the very least you are concerned about the citizenry you protect and serve.
Have a good day,and stay safe.