Ooops: San Antonio SWAT hits the wrong house

[taco]

Demise:

"Remember, the people being raided aren't the only ones that can die"

Yes, but I bet more innocent civilians died than cops during these no-knock raids.

[Long Path]

That, Taco, is a bet I believe I'll take.

[JohnKSa]

Long Path,

All of the things that you listed as visual decision making helps can be purchased or fabricated quite easily.

All of the commands can be shouted by anyone.

What you won't quite come out and say is that because criminals who perpetrate home invasions AND LEOs serving no-knock warrants both want the element of surprise in these situations, it is impossible for a citizen to gather enough hard information to make a decision in the amount of time available.

A person would have to make an IMMEDIATE armed response if he were to have ANY chance of survival should the break-in turn out to be a home invasion.

I don't know what makes me more frustrated and angry.

1. That I might someday shoot an LEO in my front room because someone messed up an address.

2. That an LEO might shoot me in my front room because someone messed up an address.

[2] is much more likely than [1] as you mentioned. That's good for LEOs, bad for us...

The fact that either possibility exists would shock and infuriate the founding fathers.

While I appreciate that some good things have come from no-knock warrants, they MUST be stopped until it can be guaranteed that this type of warrant service could NEVER cause citizens and LEO's to exchange fire unless one group or the other were clearly breaking the law.

This is the same legal principle which says that citizens MUST NOT be convicted as long as there is a reasonable doubt.

[Walk Softly]

I'm curious about the baklava's, why does any LEO ever have a valid reason to hide his identity?

[mrat]

Sorry to disappoint you, but McNamara retired some time ago. The new Chief (if you actually read carefully through the thread) is William Lansdowne. Just to make you happy, McNamara was there and Lansdowne said that he was a patrol officer when McNamara was Chief and he said he didn't particularly care for McNamara.

I know that will disappoint you, but that's the truth.

Actually this is not the truth. I grew up in San Jose and worked in a neighboring agency and I thought the line about Lansdowne being a patrol officer didn't sound right so I did a little checking.

McNamara was Chief form 1976 to 1991. When McNamara came to SJPD Lansdowne had already been a sergeant for five years. In 1980 Lansdowne promoted to Lieutenant, in 1988 he promoted to Captain, note that McNamara was chief during this time period. I am not saying you are not telling the truth but obviously someone is tossing around some BS. If Landsdowne was lying I put zero credence in anything he says.

I have read numerous threads where you reply to the infamous conference of police chiefs where "There were at least fifty chiefs in the room and perhaps an equal number of their top men with them" and not one of them disagreed. What conference was this and how did you get to participate? The reason I ask is because it is rare that there are that many chiefs and other top brass at one conference and even more rare that someone who isn't a "top dog" is allowed to attend, especially a non LEO. Also I found it hard to believe that with that many chiefs/brass there that they were in complete agreement with whether the sky was blue, nevermind law enforcement policy.

Now San Jose is a big city with lots of problems, I lived and worked up there. I know the amount of times that their SWAT team is used, as a matter of fact they are one of the few departments in the country with fulltime SWAT teams. And yes I did say teams, they have more than one SWAT team. I still have friends that work up there and I know for a fact that their SWAT teams are still busting in doors. They may not be doing traditional "no knocks" but they are knocking, announcing then busting in after waiting the legally required amount of time (this is what the majority of departments in the country do). I add this because your posts on this conference say that SJPD chief states that his officers are not doing forced entries which is incorrect.

[wolfman97]

The funny thing is, I can see the merit of some of your ideas. And BogBabe's. And Lendringser's. Et al, including, perhaps, a chief of police of a town I've never been to, and whom I'll likely never meet.

OK, that sounds like the beginning of a discussion.

I simply don't agree that the tool should be banned wholesale. I don't agree that you can create preventive policy that will be effective in limiting liability without creating greater, perhaps unseen liability.

Well, I think the current state of opinion on it from the chiefs I talked to is that it shouldn't be banned wholesale, either. It just shouldn't be used except in cases where it is absolutely necessary. That would include cases where someone's life is in immediate danger. It would not include its (by far) most common use -- busting ordinary drug dealers.

Would you agree that, based on the arguments the Chief put forward, that it should be dropped for drug dealers and reserved to those situations in which someone's life is in immediate danger?

I AM angered and ashamed of the bad cops. I'm FURIOUS that there weren't more convictions obtained in the recent investigation of the Rampart division of L.A.P.D. (They did fire a bunch of guys. I can understand how that [firings but not criminal prosecutions] happens; I.A. can obtain all kinds of information (legally) that gives us good grounds to fire a cop without obtaining enough admissible evidence to have good grounds for a criminal prosecution. But still-- I want those guys to be in the GrayBar Hotel, for a good long while. ) But forgive my defensiveness at having the assumption be made that our profession is riddled with liars who will swear false affidavits.

Personally, I know all sorts of cops, ranging from the salt of the earth to a**holes you can't trust as far as you can throw an SUV. My purely unscientific impression is that the vast majority of them go into the profession because they are genuinely good people who genuinely want to contribute something good to their community.

But, having said that, I have also seen enough bad apples in the profession (and bad policy from their superiors) that I can well understand why other people get a bad attitude about them. I think no-knocks and the War on Some Drugs in general are public relations disasters for the police. I think if you eliminated those things, you would find far fewer people with a bad attitude toward cops.

[wolfman97]

Actually this is not the truth. I grew up in San Jose and worked in a neighboring agency and I thought the line about Lansdowne being a patrol officer didn't sound right so I did a little checking.

McNamara was Chief form 1976 to 1991. When McNamara came to SJPD Lansdowne had already been a sergeant for five years. In 1980 Lansdowne promoted to Lieutenant, in 1988 he promoted to Captain, note that McNamara was chief during this time period. I am not saying you are not telling the truth but obviously someone is tossing around some BS. If Landsdowne was lying I put zero credence in anything he says.

No, Lansdowne wasn't lying. I simply put "patrol" in front of "officer" inadvertently. He said he was an officer during McNamara's reign. He said he didn't care for McNamara. Whether he was a "patrol" officer isn't particularly significant.

I have read numerous threads where you reply to the infamous conference of police chiefs where "There were at least fifty chiefs in the room and perhaps an equal number of their top men with them" and not one of them disagreed. What conference was this and how did you get to participate? The reason I ask is because it is rare that there are that many chiefs and other top brass at one conference and even more rare that someone who isn't a "top dog" is allowed to attend, especially a non LEO.

It was a conference held at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. The general subject of the conference was police ethics. It was attended by McNamara, the various chiefs I have described, Milton Friedman (Nobel laureate in economics), George Schulz (former Secretary of State), Ed Meese (Reagan's AG), a few mayors and other people like them. I was invited as a special guest, as I had been for the previous conferences because of my work in researching the history of our drug laws.

Also I found it hard to believe that with that many chiefs/brass there that they were in complete agreement with whether the sky was blue, nevermind law enforcement policy.

I can't account for what you find hard to believe. The fact is that no one did disagree and every comment I heard afterwards at lunch was in agreement.

Now San Jose is a big city with lots of problems, I lived and worked up there. I know the amount of times that their SWAT team is used, as a matter of fact they are one of the few departments in the country with fulltime SWAT teams. And yes I did say teams, they have more than one SWAT team. I still have friends that work up there and I know for a fact that their SWAT teams are still busting in doors. They may not be doing traditional "no knocks" but they are knocking, announcing then busting in after waiting the legally required amount of time (this is what the majority of departments in the country do). I add this because your posts on this conference say that SJPD chief states that his officers are not doing forced entries which is incorrect.

And you would know the policy the Chief set better than the Chief himself, exactly how?

[Seeker]

The reason I ask is because it is rare that there are that many chiefs and other top brass at one conference and even more rare that someone who isn't a "top dog" is allowed to attend, especially a non LEO.

IIRC Hunter Thompson tells a story where he found himself in exactly this position. I beleive the event unter 'attended' was in Las Vegas

[mpfive0]

I guess I'll jump in here,

lendringser said: "I fear we do the rank-and-file LEOs a great disservice by lumping them in with the door-kickers."

Well the hard fact is there are only a few full time "door-kickn" teams in the country, the vast majority of tactical teams are made up of the rank and file, as mine is. Out of my 13 years on the street, I have been a "door-kicker" for 7.

FWIW, I wrote in a previous post:

"the profile of the average tactical officer is a middle-aged, married, family man, who has been on the job for more than 10 years. We are selected because we are calm, even-tempered and have handled high stress situations professionally. There is no room on a tactical team for thugs, hot-heads, zealots, egos or any of the other charachteristics many here have attributed to them. We would certainly not tolerate them and we wouldn't expect the public to either. Are there exceptions and bad-apples, absolutely, but they would be weeded out quickly"

As stated the "door-kickers" are the rank-and file guys.

lendringser also said: "There is absolutely no reason at all for knocking down someone's door if there is not a life in immediate danger"

Other have also stated that they believe no-knocks should only be used for barricaded subjects and hostage situations. Tactically speaking, you absolutely don't just go crashing through a door in those situations, without a lot of prior attempts at contact and negotiation. Legally speaking, in those situations, you DO NOT even need a warrant to make the entry, when and if it is ultimately neccesary.

Having said this, I can now hear others who take issue with the mear existance of no-knock warrants, now declaring, that if what I said is in fact the case, than I proved their point for them.

I disagree, no-knock warrants have a place in LE. I will grant that the "preservation of evidence" is a weak argument, therefore when my team serves a no-knock it always based on the targets anticipated level of preperation and plans for armed resistance.

You might not belive this but most drug dealers expect a dynamic entry at some point or another, most take it in stride, "the cost of doing business". Others say "Not Me", they barricade their cribs, make plans for armed resistance etc. This is when no-knocks are needed.

That said, no-knocks are again only a small fraction of the type of operation my team engages in, we are mostly called out for the as mentioned barricaded subjects and such. No-knocks are a rarity.

And you folks can make a quick assesment of whether you are at risk of having a team mistakenly crash through your door, at Oh-Dark Hundred Hours, and wreaking all sorts of havoc and mayhem.

Go outside, and look to the left and right of your residence, is there a drug dealer living next door. No? Then you are safe. If there is, and you are the decent folks I assume you to be, than you should already have been in contact with the relevent agencies, and might already have a suraillance team set up in your living room, say hi for me. Again you are safe.

If on the other hand, you have a drug dealer living next door, and you have buried your head in the sand, and are just ignoring the violence he is perpetrating on your very neighborhood, than yes, you do run the risk of an errant tactical entry.

Now, of course, I am being fecetious, what happened in SA, was a huge mistake and needs to be addressed, there will be accountability, and heads will probably roll, as they should.

I know the awesome responsibilty that we as LEO's have, and more specifically Tactical officers like myself have. The last thing we want to do is scare even a single innocent person. I know for a fact my team would have never have made an entry on a location, when our only direction was :"go up the alley, it's the one with the red car parked out back"

In the few no-knocks we serve a year, the location is checked and double checked, and we have even had a CI walk right up to the location accompanied by a UC Officer, while being watched by one of our sniper/scouts, just so that we can get the exact location from one of our own guys, before we jump off.

I trully realize where some folks here are coming from, when they say they get chills thinking about how they would react if the same type of entry was made on their residence. Some asked how they might be able to tell a legit Police Tactical team, vs a gang of imposters.

The clothing can be dublicated, and they can shout all the correct phrases, but I would highly doubt they would have access to pyrotechnic distraction devices. If you hear a large explosion, a bright flash, 1.5 seconds after you heard your door kicked in, it is the real deal. Get down and do what they say.

If by some huge stretch of chance, this was a criminal gang, and they had the foresight and means to create a 185db, 2 million cp detonation, then these are very bad dudes and you would again be best served by getting down and doing what they say.

Wolfman97, I will try and address some of the points your "Chief" made against no-knocks, but keep in mind no matter what a chief says to your face, his #1 priority is to limit his and the dept's liability, NOT public safety.

You said he said: "that no matter how much surveillance you do, you never really know if there is an innocent granny in the backroom with a shotgun."

No suggestion made that we have the wrong place under surveillance, therefore if granny is sitting in the bedroom of a crack house with a shotgun, she is NOT innocent.

You said he said: "it is far better to just wait until the guilty party leaves and surround them on the street where they are vulnerable. If the house needs to be entered, they can simply go back with overwhelming force, surround the place and wait them out."

"The original reason for the no-knock raids was to keep suspects from destroying evidence, . That's a bogus reason, he said, because if you don't have enough evidence to make the case already, then you don't have enough evidence to go busting down doors with machine guns in you hands. "

You put countless more innocent people in danger by taking the perp down on the street than when you have him contained. But as I said the preservation of evidence argument is weak. In my dept, the case is always made against the dealer before the warrant is signed, we don't need the drugs that are in there to make the case.

We use no-knocks against dealers who have vowed not to go back alive. So surrounding them and waiting them out, is just asking for a protracted gun battle. So far, with my team, no matter how badly they would rather go out in a blaze of glory, when he have hit their door at 0330, and tossed a bang at the foot of their bed, we've brought them out alive.

And that is the point, no matter how many of you here, think tactical teams only exist so we can get our rocks off, playing with our expensive "toys". The reality is we are a life-saving unit. Teams execute countless operations professionally everyday in our country, with no fanfare. If some here had their way, and those same situations were required to be handled by community policing officers then numerous innocents, officers and perps would die needlessly. That is an indisputable fact.

[mrat]

No, Lansdowne wasn't lying. I simply put "patrol" in front of "officer" inadvertently. He said he was an officer during McNamara's reign. He said he didn't care for McNamara. Whether he was a "patrol" officer isn't particularly significant.

You are right that the term "patrol" isn't significant but "officer" is. In SJPD "officer" is a rank. I realize I am nitpicking a bit but officer and captain are nowhere near each other in a department. And for the record I didn't care for McNamara either, he was a pompous idiot. He was a typical east coast liberal demorat that knows what is best for everyone else.

I can't account for what you find hard to believe. The fact is that no one did disagree and every comment I heard afterwards at lunch was in agreement.

No you can't account for what I believe. But my experience doing this LEO thing is why I believe this way. The "brass" are typically a bunch of egotistical manics, that is why I find it hard to believe.

And you would know the policy the Chief set better than the Chief himself, exactly how?

Umm, because they still are doing forced entries. Just because the chief has said no "no knocks" that doesn't mean that they are not doing forced entries. No knock warrants mean the officers approach the door and force entry without knocking, announcing, and demanding entry. A typical warrant is served by knocking, announcing and demanding entry then forcing entry after a short time period if the door isn't opended. It appears that you took his stance on "no knocks" as meaning that they are not doing forced entries.

[NGK]

A. The report is from the media's and vitims side of it all.
B. They both tend to lie when it makes thier report or law suits look better.
C. It wasn't a illegal entry if it was honestly done by mistake, it was wrong, the department should formaly apologize, pay for any damages to the resident and any medical bills.
D. None of us was there so none of us have the ability to speculate as to what really happned or condone/condemn anyone when we know nothing but what the media says (see point B). I sure as hell don't want to be tried by the media and I doubt any of you do either.
E. It is alot easier to set on your computer and armchair quaterback what the Police do than it is to do what they do.
F. Everyone makes mistakes even Police Officers (see point C for how this should be handled)
G. Everyone have a Happy Thanksgiving

[wolfman97]

I will grant that the "preservation of evidence" is a weak argument,

Well, then you pretty much blew any argument for no-knocks because that was the original justification. The arguments for police and citizen safety only came after they recognized that no-knocks to preserve evidence were inherently dangerous.

therefore when my team serves a no-knock it always based on the targets anticipated level of preperation and plans for armed resistance.

How many people (even criminals) are silly enough to plan armed resistance against a SWAT team?

If they did, how would you know?

If they did, wouldn't it be better to just surround them, show them there was no way they could get out and wait them out? Seems to me that would work for damn near everybody for Al Qaeda fanatics -- in which case the Feds probably brought out the Marines, anyway.

You might not belive this but most drug dealers expect a dynamic entry at some point or another, most take it in stride, "the cost of doing business". Others say "Not Me", they barricade their cribs, make plans for armed resistance etc. This when no-knocks are needed.

Again, why not just surround them and wait them out? I have never heard of anyone silly enough to think they are going to win a fight with the SWAT team.

That said, no-knocks are again only a small fraction of the type of operation my team engages in, we are mostly called out for the as mentioned barricaded subjects and such. No-knocks are a rarity.

In your area, perhaps. But they have been pretty much nationwide official policy (i.e., promoted by the Feds) for drug raids since the 70s.

And you folks can make a quick assesment of whether you are at risk of having a team mistakenly crash through your door, at Oh-Dark Hundred Hours, and wreaking all sorts of havoc and mayhem. . . .

Tell it to Donald Scott, who lived on fifty acres alone with his wife in Malibu. No crack houses in that neighborhood. Tell it to the guy in San Diego who was shot twice after a snitch reported that the guy's garage was full of cocaine. No crack houses in that neighborhood, either, just a lying snitch looking to get a deal. (That was the Feds that did that one, so obviously mistakes start at the very top.)

Now, of course, I am being fecetious, what happened in SA, was a huge mistake and needs to be addressed, there will be accountability, and heads will probably roll, as they should.

We agree that heads should roll. We just apparently disagree on why.

I know the awesome responsibilty that we as LEO's have, and more specifically Tactical officers like myself have. The last thing we want to do is scare even a single innocent person. I know for a fact my team would have never have made an entry on a location, when our only direction was :"go up the alley, it's the one with the red car parked out back"

I applaud your concern. At the same time, I have noted lots of mistakes in serving no-knocks.

Some asked how they might be able to tell a legit Police Tactical team, vs a gang of imposters.

The clothing can be dublicated, and they can shout all the correct phrases, but I would highly doubt they would have access to pyrotechnic distraction devices. If you hear a large explosion, a bright flash, 1.5 seconds after you heard your door kicked in, it is the real deal. Get down and do what they say.

That's the standard???? If a grenade goes off in my living room I should comply with whoever threw it (assuming I am still capable of doing anything rational). If they don't throw a grenade, then I ought to start blasting away.

Pardon me if this doesn't sound like a prescription for citizen safety.

If by some huge stretch of chance, this was a criminal gang, and they had the foresight and means to create a 185db, 2 million cp detonation, then these are very bad dudes and you would again be best served by getting down and doing what they say.

Well, actually, I don't want to reveal any secrets, but I am a complete civilian, always have been, and I have seen such things in civilian hands. (Not mine, I have this prejudice against keeping explosives around the house.) Furthermore, from my modest studies of the subject, I think it is well within the means of a good hobbyist to build such things. I haven't looked lately, but I would bet the instructions are on the Internet somewhere.

Wolfman97, I will try and address some of the points your "Chief" made against no-knocks, but keep in mind no matter what a chief says to your face, his #1 priority is to limit his and the dept's liability, NOT public safety.

I got the impression that he might disagree with that characterization of his thinking, but no matter.

You said he said: "that no matter how much surveillance you do, you never really know if there is an innocent granny in the backroom with a shotgun."

No suggestion made that we have the wrong place under surveillance, therefore if granny is sitting in the bedroom of a crack house with a shotgun, she is NOT innocent.

What crime did she commit -- other than perhaps being in the same house as some other member of her family? (Understanding that grannies don't always have lots of money and the best options as to where they live.)

You put countless more innocent people in danger by taking the perp down on the street than when you have him contained.

Not according to the Chiefs I talked to. And, since you don't really know who is in the house, that seems to be an assumption on your part, not a fact. If you are on the street, you can pick the spot that suits the cops the best -- rather than attacking a home that may have been made into a fort just for your benefit.

BTW, that's just what happened in LA a few years back, which is why Darryl "hang-em-all (except my son)" Gates bought a military police car and equipped it with big battering ram to destroy houses totally. The justification for it all was that they had to preserve evidence, of course. There never was an occasion when the perps saw the SWAT team outside and decided to go for the glory. But, hey, it made great pictures on the evening news -- until more sober thinking shut the program down.

But as I said the preservation of evidence argument is weak. In my dept, the case is always made against the dealer before the warrant is signed, we don't need the drugs that are in there to make the case.

Then no-knocks are wrong on their face, because that was the justification.

We use no-knocks against dealers who have vowed not to go back alive.

I would think that would be a comparatively small portion of them. I would also note that a lot of blustery bragging disappears when someone is surrounded by a big squad of heavily armed police.

So surrounding them and waiting them out, is just asking for a protracted gun battle.

Again, not according to the Chiefs I talked to. Innocent deaths from no-knocks seem to be far more frequent than protracted gun battles, anyway, so maybe it is time to take the risk on a protracted gun battle or two. (not that there are a whole lot of people in this world --- even criminals -- stupid enough to think they are going to win a protracted gun battle with the cops.)

So far, with my team, no matter how badly they would rather go out in a blaze of glory, when he have hit their door at 0330, and tossed a bang at the foot of their bed, we've brought them out alive.

Good for you and your team. But, let's just note that the reason you are even discussing it here is because that obviously isn't the case nationwide.

And that is the point, no matter how many of you here, think tactical teams only exist so we can get our rocks off, playing with are expensive "toys".

Hey, I would like to have some of those toys, too. They would be entirely fun. But I recognize that I want them solely as toys, and I am also able to recognize grown-up boys exhibiting the same kinds of behavior that they did as kids. They still have the fort and the treehouse, it is just far more sophisticated.

The reality is we are a life-saving unit. Teams execute countless operations professionally everyday in our country, with no fanfare. If some here had their way, and those same situations were required to be handled by community policing officers then numerous innocents would die needlessly. That is an indisputable fact.

If it is "an indisputable fact" then you ought to be able to provide us with something besides your opinion that says so. Some study or analysis of the situation, comparing the various methods of bringing these people down. I don't think I have ever seen or heard of one. And, if there isn't any actual research to back up which method works better, that ought to tell you something right there. (Like there isn't any research to back up any part of our policy on drugs.)

[wolfman97]

You are right that the term "patrol" isn't significant but "officer" is. In SJPD "officer" is a rank. I realize I am nitpicking a bit but officer and captain are nowhere near each other in a department. And for the record I didn't care for McNamara either, he was a pompous idiot. He was a typical east coast liberal demorat that knows what is best for everyone else.

To a layman, an "officer" is a cop, any cop. I am a layman and, frankly, the difference doesn't mean much to me. It certainly doesn't mean much in terms of the point being made. The point was that he worked for McNamara while McNamara was Chief and didn't like him (just like you). I would recommend that you

Not that your attempt to "poison the well" by saying that McNamara is a bad guy was really relevant to the subject, anyway. He didn't say the item in question, so it wouldn't matter what he was.

No you can't account for what I believe. But my experience doing this LEO thing is why I believe this way. The "brass" are typically a bunch of egotistical manics, that is why I find it hard to believe.

I will tell them you said so. Maybe I just got into an especially good group of them, but they didn't seem like it to me -- not that this would have been a coherent, rational argument on this topic, anyway. (You don't like their opinion because someone else you met of that rank was an egomaniac???? Please.)

And you would know the policy the Chief set better than the Chief himself, exactly how?

Umm, because they still are doing forced entries. Just because the chief has said no "no knocks" that doesn't mean that they are not doing forced entries. No knock warrants mean the officers approach the door and force entry without knocking, announcing, and demanding entry. A typical warrant is served by knocking, announcing and demanding entry then forcing entry after a short time period if the door isn't opended. It appears that you took his stance on "no knocks" as meaning that they are not doing forced entries.

No, I just reported what he said. As already discussed, there may be cases where forced entries are required. They just aren't required for the typical drug bust, which is by far their most common use nationwide. And let me point out that, while you have said they are still doing forced entries (they may be), you haven't given anything to show the situations in which they are used. That seems to be an important point, doesn't it?

[wolfman97]

A. The report is from the media's and vitims side of it all.

They got the wrong place and did a SWAT raid. Then they went a couple of doors down and arrested the perp without incident -- no SWAT team was needed. Any dispute about that?

B. They both tend to lie when it makes thier report or law suits look better.

And the police don't????? Not that this changes any of the facts that all parties in the incident seem to agree on.

C. It wasn't a illegal entry if it was honestly done by mistake, it was wrong, the department should formaly apologize, pay for any damages to the resident and any medical bills.

The question is not whether it was "illegal". After all, civil servants are given some latitude in those areas before they are charged with crimes. The question is whether it was good policy.

D. None of us was there so none of us have the ability to speculate as to what really happned or condone/condemn anyone when we know nothing but what the media says (see point B). I sure as hell don't want to be tried by the media and I doubt any of you do either.

Yeah, you can claim the media is biased if you want. There seem to be enough facts agreed upon by everyone to establish the fact that they made a serious mistake.

E. It is alot easier to set on your computer and armchair quaterback what the Police do than it is to do what they do.

Yeah, but, obviously, if they do something like this then it is time someone was putting a little heat on them to get things right.

F. Everyone makes mistakes even Police Officers (see point C for how this should be handled)

Yeah, but as others have pointed out, my mistakes aren't so likely to kill innocent people.

G. Everyone have a Happy Thanksgiving

Same to you and yours.

[JohnKSa]

Fruitless argument.

LEO's can't give an inch on this. They're simply not going to see it from the citizen's point of view--they can't afford to.

For them to concede anything substantial in this debate would be for them to admit that they may one day find themselves shooting totally innocent citizens (or being shot/shot at by completely law-abiding citizens) because someone transposes numbers or gives poor directions. That's pretty tough to admit for someone who has ostensibly dedicated their lives to "protecting and serving."

This argument isn't about the minutae of what the intruders will shout, what they will be wearing, whether or not there will be grenades or not, etc., etc. It's not about whether or not criminals will try to destroy evidence.

It's about the basic contradiction in a legal/justice system which, on the one hand, allows a citizen to use deadly force to protect his domicile from forcible entry, and on the other hand, allows LEO's to forcibly enter a private citizen's home without warning.

In effect, both groups can, under certain circumstances and within the protection of the law use deadly force against the other.

I find it remarkable that every LEO that responded to this thread was able to ignore the basic issue and pretend that the issue is really something as banal as that the LEO's were careless in this particular case.

[mrat]

Wolfman97,
I'll cut to the chase and stop all the cut, paste and counter points. Your story about ALL these chiefs and other high level police admin types, as reported, doesn't wash. Why do I say that? Because if such a high number of chiefs and brass were against no knocks and were against forced entries the question is why are they still be done? So either these LEO bosses were blowing smoke to look good for some members of the public or this meeting didn't go down as you recall. As I already said I think it is possible you are equating no knocks to all "normal" forced entries and these chiefs were talking specifically about no knocks. Personally I think it was a combination of smoke blowing and that they were specifically talking no knocks.

[mrat]

LEO's can't give an inch on this. They're simply not going to see it from the citizen's point of view--they can't afford to.


Of course LEOs see it from a citizen's point of view, we are citizens too. A LEO's house can just as easily be the victim of an errant warrant service as the next guy. We don't have some kind of invisible to other people except LEOs sign on our houses.

[wolfman97]

I'll cut to the chase and stop all the cut, paste and counter points. Your story about ALL these chiefs and other high level police admin types, as reported, doesn't wash. Why do I say that? Because if such a high number of chiefs and brass were against no knocks and were against forced entries the question is why are they still be done?

Uuuuuh, different cities with different policies?? Or was that too hard to figure out?

So either these LEO bosses were blowing smoke to look good for some members of the public or this meeting didn't go down as you recall.

There were no members of the public there and you can call the good Chief and ask him yourself, if you like. It was a fairly extended discussion, so it wasn't a sentence or two I might have misinterpreted.

As I already said I think it is possible you are equating no knocks to all "normal" forced entries and these chiefs were talking specifically about no knocks. Personally I think it was a combination of smoke blowing and that they were specifically talking no knocks.

They were discussing no-knocks specifically in relationship to drug busts, because the conference was focused on police ethics re the drug war.

But, let's just summarize your arguments on the subject.

1) You don't like Joe McNamara and assumed he said it.

2) William Lansdowne was not a "patrol officer".

3) They still do no-knocks or forced entries, or something like that, but you aren't able to discuss the policies under which they do them, if any.

4) Chiefs and people like them are egomaniacs.

5) I must have heard something incorrectly.

In all of that, you haven't yet addressed any of the points that I brought up from Lansdowne's talk, nor any of the substantive issues regarding this topic. Did you happen to catch the fact that you haven't made one logical, sensible argument on the topic so far?

I can see why you don't want to cut and paste. You weren't addressing the issues, anyway.

[wolfman97]

Of course LEOs see it from a citizen's point of view, we are citizens too. A LEO's house can just as easily be the victim of an errant warrant service as the next guy. We don't have some kind of invisible to other people except LEOs sign on our houses.

And none of those guys on the SWAT team would think to mention, "Gee, this looks just like Joe's house where we all had a barbecue last weekend."

I suppose it is a possibility they could hit a cop's house by mistake. I can't recall any instance where I have ever heard of it happening -- and there are enough incidents out there that it seems likely it would have occurred already. (Personally, I think it would be just great if they would hit the Chief's house by mistake. Then you might really get a serious analysis of these policies.)

Can you point to any instance in which a cop's house has been hit mistakenly by the SWAT team?

[Peetmoss]

"Well, actually, I don't want to reveal any secrets, but I am a complete civilian, always have been, and I have seen such things in civilian hands. (Not mine, I have this prejudice against keeping explosives around the house.) Furthermore, from my modest studies of the subject, I think it is well within the means of a good hobbyist to build such things. I haven't looked lately, but I would bet the instructions are on the Internet somewhere."

Just for fun I decieded to do a quick search other then reading the aricles it took know more then 5 seconds to acquire the information to build my own flash bang grenade on the net. Damn the net is a great resource. Here is a link.

http://www.doingfreedom.com/gen/0301...dburstsim.html On a side not I also learned how to make poor mans plastic while seeing how available info on making a flash bang device

[JohnKSa]

Of course LEOs see it from a citizen's point of view, we are citizens too...

THAT'S the part of my post that you choose to respond to?

How about some commentary on the basic problem?

How about addressing the possiblity that you, as an LEO, sworn to protect and to serve, might find yourself one day having shot a completely innocent armed citizen in his front room because someone screwed up an address or directions on a no knock warrant?

Perhaps more to the point, since you consider yourself a citizen too, why not tell us how you feel about a system which one day might place you as an armed citizen in a position to exchange fire with LEO's who forcibly enter your house without warning someday under a fouled up no knock?

[mrat]

They were discussing no-knocks specifically in relationship to drug busts, because the conference was focused on police ethics re the drug war.

You just confirmed the point I made when I said this: "As I already said I think it is possible you are equating no knocks to all "normal" forced entries and these chiefs were talking specifically about no knocks."

1) You don't like Joe McNamara and assumed he said it.

Sigh. I never said I thought McNamara said it. I simply said I didn't like him.

3) They still do no-knocks or forced entries, or something like that, but you aren't able to discuss the policies under which they do them, if any.

I am supposed to get a SJPD policy manual and post relevent sections on the internet? Okay. And where is your postings of relevent policies under which they DON'T do any kind of forced entries?. And no, their chief saying he doesn't want his officers doing no knocks that are conected to the WOD count as a blanket no forced entries policy. How I know they still do forced entries is from working with their guys when I was still working up there and from still keeping in touch with some of them. Honestly I don't know if they do no knocks that are connected to the WOD, I doubt it if their chief specifically stated he is against it.

I can see why you don't want to cut and paste. You weren't addressing the issues, anyway.

The issue I am addressing is this conference that you sated you attended. I have seen you post about this conference several times here and at Glocktalk. What you were posting about what was said by all these LEO brass did not sound right to me so I wanted to ask some questions of you to get some clarification. I am actually sorry I did because you are a bit touchy about being asked about it, I quess people should just take what you say as gospel. But I did get the clarification I wanted. By your own admission this presentation was about no knocks specifically in regards to the WOD, not "regular" warrants, forced entries, etc. The problem was that your previous posts on this conference state that these chiefs were against ALL forced entries. Now that I know what was actually being said I understand what they were talking about and what their concerns were.

[mrat]

And none of those guys on the SWAT team would think to mention, "Gee, this looks just like Joe's house where we all had a barbecue last weekend."

Do you think that every federal, state and local LEO in my county has been to my house? Believe it or not a very small percentage has. The "blue wall" isn't that thick.

I can't recall any instance where I have ever heard of it happening -- and there are enough incidents out there that it seems likely it would have occurred already

No not really. When you look at the sheer volume of warrants that are served in this country on a daily basis these incidents are actually a very small percentage. Also when you throw in that a very small percentage of the population are LEOs it would be even more unlikely. But honestly the chance of this happening to anyone is very small, not that it makes it right when it does happen to someone.

[mrat]

THAT'S the part of my post that you choose to respond to?

I chose to respond to that part because some people seem to think that LEOs are somehow immune to this happening to them.

How about some commentary on the basic problem?

I see the basic problem differently than you and it pisses me off. I see the basic problem as someone screwed up and sent these SWAT guys to the wrong house. I don't care if they went and nicely knocked on the door and asked for mister BG to come out and play or they wanted to play captain commando. The bottom line is someone screwed up, probably because of laziness or stupidity. When LEOs end up on the wrong door step to serve a warrant very bad things can happen regardless how the warrant is served.

If you are asking me if I agree with no knocks I do in certain situations and I don't think flushing dope is a good reason. In this case the news article reported they had a no knock due to the guy being a bad dude. Whether that is true or not none of us knows the answer.

I don't understand this whole no knock so they don't flush thing. I am currently working a gang unit and we do lots of WOD stuff with the narcs. When we go to serve the warrant we already have the guy in violation of the law due to having buys into him. Also in my thirteen years of being a LEO in two different jurisdictions, I have never been involved in a no knock or even heard of one being used.

[wolfman97]

You just confirmed the point I made when I said this: "As I already said I think it is possible you are equating no knocks to all "normal" forced entries and these chiefs were talking specifically about no knocks."

I explained what the subject of discussion was all along.

1) You don't like Joe McNamara and assumed he said it.

Sigh. I never said I thought McNamara said it. I simply said I didn't like him.

Which, of course, is not a comment on the subject at hand, but just an irrelevant ad hominem.

3) They still do no-knocks or forced entries, or something like that, but you aren't able to discuss the policies under which they do them, if any.

I am supposed to get a SJPD policy manual and post relevent sections on the internet? Okay.

You mean, as opposed to vague guessing?

And where is your postings of relevent policies under which they DON'T do any kind of forced entries?.

It was no-knock drug raids, remember? And I posted the comments of the Chief.

And no, their chief saying he doesn't want his officers doing no knocks that are conected to the WOD count as a blanket no forced entries policy.

Who said it did?

How I know they still do forced entries is from working with their guys when I was still working up there and from still keeping in touch with some of them. Honestly I don't know if they do no knocks that are connected to the WOD, I doubt it if their chief specifically stated he is against it.

And I doubt if you know what you are talking about. Your only argument so far has been "I don't believe it."

I can see why you don't want to cut and paste. You weren't addressing the issues, anyway.

The issue I am addressing is this conference that you sated you attended. I have seen you post about this conference several times here and at Glocktalk.

The subject was no-knock drug raids and, as I said, I haven't seen a coherent argument in their favor yet. Your argument of "I don't believe you but I really don't have any facts myself" would not qualify.

What you were posting about what was said by all these LEO brass did not sound right to me so I wanted to ask some questions of you to get some clarification. I am actually sorry I did because you are a bit touchy about being asked about it, I quess people should just take what you say as gospel.

Or you could just try discussing the points the Chief made. So far you haven't done that. Regardless of who said it, or what they said, I presented what is apparently a pretty persuasive argument against them. Like I said, no one has come up with a good counter-argument yet. You included.

But I did get the clarification I wanted. By your own admission this presentation was about no knocks specifically in regards to the WOD, not "regular" warrants, forced entries, etc. The problem was that your previous posts on this conference state that these chiefs were against ALL forced entries. Now that I know what was actually being said I understand what they were talking about and what their concerns were.

I explained it before and answered all questions asked of me. And I note that, with all your good conversation above, you still haven't come up with any good argument for them. Based on the responses we have seen, there isn't any good argument to do them.