Another damn police shooting

[MKSheppard]

The raids are carried out the way they are for two reasons. To perserve evidence AND to prevent a suspect from barricading himself.

Except as Uraniun235 pointed out earlier, the US Military is more lenient on terrorists in Iraq, surrounding the house and waiting them out with bullhorns, despite there being a greater incenitive to storm the place so that the terrorists cannot delete their laptop hard drives or wipe their cell phone memories.

Gee, I guess it could be because the Army long ago learned that Dynamic entry and CQC/CQB is a huge pile of shit they would rather not get into?

[MKSheppard]

At this point, we should just give up all pretense of the Police in the US being a civilian occupation and federalize them as the Federal Armed Police (FAP), similar to how China has the People's Armed Police (PAP).


People's Armed Police in Xinjiang

Of course, we'll follow PAP doctrine and equip the FAP with heavy weapons such as armored fighting vehicles, anti tank weapons and artillery.

Because shelling drug dealers with 105mm from a few klicks away is the safest way to remove the threat of drugs from god-fearin' America with minimal risk to the officers.

By the way, here's the Rules of Engagement regarding Escalation of Force for Hong Kong Police:

First, verbal warning.

Then, verbal warning of employment of force.

Then, baton or pepper spray.

Then verbal warning if that proves to be inefficacious.

Then draw firearm.

Then verbal warning again.

Then you are cleared to fire.

If police departments across the US adopted this ROE, there'd be a lot less police shootings at the cost of more dead officers, which is a price that every officer who swears the oath should be aware of -- nowhere is it written that you have to come home from your shift.

[Shroom Man 777]

It might be more manageable if criminals weren't so heavily armed with guns and instead just had knives. Wouldn't that make it easier for the police to deal with? Or would knife-wielding criminals be just as dangerous as gun-wielding criminals, and won't make it easier for the cops to do their jobs?

On a more humorous note, if those Chicom police end up liquefying criminals with that recoilless rifle of theirs, then I guess you can call it...

A PAP smear.



Yeah!

[MKSheppard]

Oh, and the HK Police actually do live up to their ROEs for Escalation.

There was a case in HK where a Nepalese man was shot dead by a HKPD officer.

The suspect had mental problems and was living on the streets. In the encounter in question, he was very aggressive and used a chair to try and club the officer. (This was not disputed).

The HKPD officer pepper-sprayed him first, and when that didn't work, finally shot him. The officer ended up getting suspended for it.

If a machine...a Chinese man...can learn the value of human life...maybe we can too.

[Kamakazie Sith]

That's the opposite of my opinion.

I apologize for misunderstand.

My opinion is that all risks and dangers associated with any government policy, ranging from SWAT raids to global thermonuclear wars, should be discussed openly by government officials. Officials should show a willingness to publically live with and admit to the costs of their own actions- in dollars or in blood.

If this were normal practice in America, it would save us from a lot of foolish hype on both sides of many issues. We could have honest discussions about policy, and rhetoric-based stupidity would be harder to use.

Unfortunately, it isn't normal practice in America to do this. Which is the main reason the War on Drugs is even possible: because politicians are allowed to claim ownership of some of the consequences of the war (drug dealer arrests) but not others (people getting shot for no damn reason, incarceration rates skyrocketing).

It is when the costs of a policy- any costs, any policy- are hidden or disavowed by the people responsible for choosing and executing the policy that we get bad government. This problem isn't unique to law enforcement.

I agree. The costs in both money and lives lost to the war on drug should be evaluated openly. The other frustrating element from law enforcements perspective is that when your government official boasts about the X amount of drug arrests during this X operation, year, etc. He/she fails to mention that most of those arrests are made against bottom feeder dealers that are easily replaced.

Yes. I understand that. And from there, we are forced to conclude: "It's OK for police to sometimes injure random people who got unlucky, as part of one of these well-planned raids designed to minimize police casualties."

Not so?

It may not be a palatable statement. That doesn't mean it isn't true- or that some similar statement wouldn't be.

The problem with this OP is it damages the integrity of the DA office and the law enforcement agency in that region and in some respects law enforcement nation wide. Here we have an experienced officer who admits that Blair was not advancing yet was still cleared of charges. The way the system is suppose to work is that it isn't OK for the police injure a random person without cause. Sometimes random people do stupid things that provide that cause. I've seen it first hand. That kind of thing is going to happen.

Anyway, I'm saying I agree with you. Just adding my own two cents.

See, this is what I'm getting at. Politicians and officials who enforce the politicians' policies should be forced to acknowledge and deal with the consequences of their actions. That does require things like admitting "Yes, one time in X this policy results in an innocent person getting shot. The alternatives (list alternatives here) are all worse, so we go for it anyway."

Because if the government does that, we can have a real discussion about whether or not it's worth it, instead of the kind of crap we get in this thread, the tone of which is set largely by posturing loons (ShadowDragon, I'm looking at you).

Absolutely, and that for the most part doesn't happen. They should talk about specific figures. How many lives were lost. How much product was seized during those operations. The overall impact done to the drug trade in the area. Basically, prove to the people that the war on drugs is worth it.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Nice to know that theres rules and policies in place to protect people allowed to wear body armor and carry assault weapons at the expense of the safety of everyone else.

Actually, the tactics developed are to ensure the safety of everyone. The numbers provided by Samuel speak for themselves. If you want 100% then go build Robocop so you aren't asking other humans to risk their lives so a suspect can have due process. (hint - Due process does not override the lives of other people and that includes police officers. Sorry.)

Get shot during a botched no-knock assault? "Sorry! Our bad! What, you expect to be protected from random gunfire? We have our own (armor-covered, armed and trained) asses to cover, you stupid civilian! Your life and well being don't matter! Oh, and if you try to sue, we'll close ranks and hound you for the rest if your life over everything we can make look like a violation."

After the decision in this OP I can see why you think that. What happened in Blairs case is a true mistake and not how it is suppose to work.

The Army has tighter ROE than the police. This is whats known as "completely fucked up and wrong."

Depends on the situation. The police have a more consistent ROE. Our ROE is the same. It is written under the laws of the state we operate in. I posted Utah "Peace Officers Use of Deadly Force" for reference near the start of this thread. The problem isn't the ROE, unless you think utilizing deadly force against someone that is using deadly force against you unacceptable. It is the consequences for violating that ROE, which is what happened in the OP. And that's the opinion of this resident police officer.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Right now you can get a 16 x 39" shield made out of Dyneema composites that provides NIJ 0108.01 Level III protection against AK-47 or NATO Ball on only 20 lbs (4.6 psf areal density) for $4,990 MSRP.

Would you mind listing the manufacture and model number for the product you're quoting?

If you applied that material to a 26" x 48" shield, it would only weigh forty pounds instead of the 80 pounds required for a shield made out of older materials.

Secondly, if the cop is using both hands to hold the shield, instead of one hand to hold it and the other hand to hold a pistol, he can carry the weight easier.

Like I said before, Shep. I didn't say it couldn't be done or that it was physically impossible. I did say that it slows the element down and in the case of a home raid a shield only protects you from one direction. When you're entering a front door, if that door goes into the living room you have many vulnerable angles and now are stripped of your mobility.

Except that logic makes no sense.

Yeah, it does. You just don't like the answer. The logic is this. If the evidence is destroyed then all that work you put into watching the house, making buys to verify that they are selling from the house, etc just went up in smoke. Without the evidence there can be no conviction. Or in other cases without the ability to make a deal there is no getting the bigger fish.

Consider:

Drug raids generally fall into two categories:

1.) The quantity involved is small enough to be flushable. At that point, why are you even doing dynamic entry? That increases the dangers for all involved.

I've addressed this time and time again. I'll say it one last fucking time. The quanity in any given drug house is usually UNKNOWN (please reference the two other posts in which I covered this for a more detailed explanation). Therefore, the only information that we have is that there are drugs being sold out of the home. Drug dealing is currently illegal in the United States and is a felony which the police are required to investigate and arrest by law.

2.) The quantity involved is large enough to present a non-trivial problem regarding disposal, meaning it's not going anywhere any time soon. Also, the people who have the money to afford such a pile of drugs will have more than enough money to invest in protection against thieves or rival gangs, making dynamic entry riskier.

If the quantity of drugs is known then this would be doable. However, as I covered before the quantity is not known.

And your source for this is?

My source is your mom. If that isn't good enough for you then consider this. Even if all the SWAT teams in Utah had level III armor and shields it still doesn't change the realities of serving a warrant on a suspected drug house.

Weber County is rich enough to have a HAZMAT taskforce in it's sheriff's office with 33 specialist personnel devoted to that taskforce alone, enabling them to do meth lab cleanups in house, which aren't cheap. They also have a 26-man SWAT team.

That's just one county of the two that make up the Weber-Morgan Narcotics Strike Force.

Holy shit. Do you know what administrative issues means? It means the guys that control what is purchased say "NO" when asked if the department will buy LEVEL III body armor. If you're saying such equipment should be mandatory for all police departments then I completely agree. Still doesn't change the realities of serving a search warrant on a suspected drug house.

So yes, there is a serious and growing problem with cops abusing steroids. The number can't be accurately placed due to the blue wall of silence [TM], but it certainly is a non-trivial amount.

That wasn't your argument though. Your argument or what you implied it to be is that the majority of SWAT team members use steroids and are incompetent. Your evidence did not meet this standard. Thank you for your concession. HINT - If you would have said that steroids is a growing problem in law enforcement then we wouldn't be having this talk.

You may fuck off. Armchair General...

[Kamakazie Sith]

"It's better for a hundred guilty men to go free than for one innocent man to suffer" or something like that, right? Innocent until proven guilty, unless it's a SWAT team, at which point you're just "collateral damage."

Are you going to contribute in this thread or post irrelevant garbage?

[Kamakazie Sith]

Except as Uraniun235 pointed out earlier, the US Military is more lenient on terrorists in Iraq, surrounding the house and waiting them out with bullhorns, despite there being a greater incenitive to storm the place so that the terrorists cannot delete their laptop hard drives or wipe their cell phone memories.

Gee, I guess it could be because the Army long ago learned that Dynamic entry and CQC/CQB is a huge pile of shit they would rather not get into?

Ahh yes. Here's the letter he read. Source

It's cool that some people here take the word of an unidentified person when it suits them. I mean are we really sticking with this? Do I have to dig up the countless IED planters that have been obliterated by hellfire missiles? Or perhaps the video of a large group of people exiting a building that was identified as a terrorist strong hold and then watching them eat a large bomb dropped from I think a f-16...yeah...you let me know when we blow up a drug house with a 500lb JDAM. Fucking idiots.

I am a US Army officer, currently serving in Afghanistan. My first thought on reading this story is this: Most American police SWAT teams probably have fewer restrictions on conducting forced entry raids than do US forces in Afghanistan.

For our troops over here to conduct any kind of forced entry, day or night, they have to meet one of two conditions: have a bad guy (or guys) inside actively shooting at them; or obtain permission from a 2-star general, who must be convinced by available intelligence (evidence) that the person or persons they’re after is present at the location, and that it’s too dangerous to try less coercive methods. The general can be pretty tough to convince, too. (I’m a staff liason, and one of my jobs is to present these briefings to obtain the required permission.)

Generally, our troops, including the special ops guys, use what we call “cordon and knock”: they set up a perimeter around the target location to keep people from moving in or out,and then announce their presence and give the target an opportunity to surrender. In the majority of cases, even if the perimeter is established at night, the call out or knock on the gate doesn’t happen until after the sun comes up.

Oh, and all of the bad guys we’re going after are closely tied to killing and maiming people.

What might be amazing to American cops is that the vast majority of our targets surrender when called out.

I don’t have a clear picture of the resources available to most police departments, but even so, I don’t see any reason why they can’t use similar methods.

[Kamakazie Sith]

It might be more manageable if criminals weren't so heavily armed with guns and instead just had knives. Wouldn't that make it easier for the police to deal with? Or would knife-wielding criminals be just as dangerous as gun-wielding criminals, and won't make it easier for the cops to do their jobs?

On a more humorous note, if those Chicom police end up liquefying criminals with that recoilless rifle of theirs, then I guess you can call it...

A PAP smear.



Yeah!

You joke but more officers die from knife related injuries than gun shot. Though the answer to this question is obvious.

[Kamakazie Sith]

HK Police Use of Force outline

Your source? So, if a gunman points a gun at them they have to follow this before opening fire? If the Napalese man was using a knife instead of a cumbersome chair...would they still?

Probably not.

If police departments across the US adopted this ROE, there'd be a lot less police shootings at the cost of more dead officers, which is a price that every officer who swears the oath should be aware of -- nowhere is it written that you have to come home from your shift.

That isn't written anywhere now either. However, it isn't written that you need to risk your life to save the life of a suspect. If that suspect is engaged in an action that could kill or seriously injure you then you have a right to defend yourself. Is this unreasonable and if so why?

Oh, and the HK Police actually do live up to their ROEs for Escalation.

All the time? In the US the suspect escalates the use of force by their actions.

There was a case in HK where a Nepalese man was shot dead by a HKPD officer.

The suspect had mental problems and was living on the streets. In the encounter in question, he was very aggressive and used a chair to try and club the officer. (This was not disputed).

The HKPD officer pepper-sprayed him first, and when that didn't work, finally shot him. The officer ended up getting suspended for it.

Why was the officer suspended? Didn't he follow their ROE?

BTW Shep. You point out this Napalese example as if that same man would have been shot on sight by United States police as a matter of course instead of a last resort. You act like US police also wouldn't have tried to pepper spray him or taser him. I will tell you our training covers exactly that course of action. In fact, in the Napalese guy if he could be contained and OC spray/Taser were ineffective we'd probably bring in a K9 or a 40mm impact weapon to take him down.

[Simon_Jester]

After the decision in this OP I can see why you think that. What happened in Blairs case is a true mistake and not how it is suppose to work.

I think the problem is the extent to which this is how it does work, and continues to work; we've seen this kind of relatively light or nonexistent punishment land on the officers in cases like this before and no doubt will again.

On the one hand, by definition the system cannot work if no one enforces the existing rules. On the other, it's entirely reasonable to criticize the system for causing innocent deaths at police hands if the rules aren't be enforced. Sometimes they are, but the rules regarding police conduct wind up letting something like this go often enough to draw attention.

And that is why people talk about the "thin blue wall."

One's opinion of a policy depends not only on whether there are rules against abuse of the policy, but on whether there's a good chance of those rules being enforced.