Another damn police shooting

[Sea Skimmer]

If there's such a minute quantity of drugs on the premises that it can be feasibly flushed down the bog if the police took an extra, oh, ten or twenty seconds to actually make themselves understood and let somebody inside answer the door (or, hell, even properly wake up; is being a heavy sleeper a death sentence now?), then they shouldn't be raiding the house in the first place.

See but the police don't care about that because the person is clearly scum and might have just sold all his drugs, so you've got to beat him any way you can to justify your budget and existence.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Do you have a response to the question of how long it takes people to answer the door when someone bangs on the door at night?

When it is a no knock warrant, like the OP if I'm not mistaken, then announcement can be made prior to entry. So, you aren't actually giving them any time to reach the door. In a knock and announce warrant the time considered reasonable is 15-20 seconds.

Among other things, if official policy is to storm the house before the occupants can answer the door, you might as well not bother knocking at all, since there's no likelihood of the occupant being able to answer the door, discuss matters with the police peacefully, surrender peacefully, or avoid having his door smashed in.

In this video I think the knocking sound was actually the door being breached. So, they didn't knock. They did announce though.

Even if, as happens once in a while, and will no doubt always happen because people are only human, the SWAT team hit the wrong house.

Now, this strikes me as being at the very least a problem that merits some discussion.

They hit the wrong house in this OP? I must have misread I thought they hit the correct house. Anyway, frankly I don't think the problem is on the police level. It is with the government officials that demand drug arrests from their law enforcement agency. For example, there's a park in my city which is known for its homeless drug traffic...meaning very little amount of drugs per dealer. The city government routinely demands that we conduct operations in this park and arrest homeless drug dealers and basically keep them going through the revolving door so the local businesses feel like we're keeping the place clean.

Police are going to utilize the tactics that have been developed from lessons learned where cops were shot and killed.

[Simon_Jester]

Even if, as happens once in a while, and will no doubt always happen because people are only human, the SWAT team hit the wrong house.

Now, this strikes me as being at the very least a problem that merits some discussion.

They hit the wrong house in this OP? I must have misread I thought they hit the correct house.

No, so far as I know they hit the house they were aiming for. But there have been cases of the SWAT team hitting the wrong house: going to the wrong address, breaking someone's door down and basically shouting and shoving everyone into submission at best. Since that is, after all, what they do during a raid; that's the point of having a specialized assault squad.

But if the SWAT team occasionally raids the wrong house (which happens), and if SWAT teams sometimes shoot people who weren't threatening them and/or destroy property... predictably, sometimes they're going to ransack the wrong house or even kill one of the occupants. That's just a matter of arithmetic.

And this can even happen because of the reactions of ordinary people who hear "Police! Search Warrant!" at the door and react accordingly (run for the door and hope you get there before they break it down, but don't make it). Let alone the possibility that someone will wake up and assume they're the targets of a break-in attempt.

Which is why I think Uraniun has a point: the whole point of this exercise is to surprise the occupants, which means that some fraction of them will inevitably react in ways that the SWAT team will find ambiguous and therefore threatening for perfectly natural reasons, even with no criminal intent whatsoever.

And sure, this may well be a problem caused by the War on Drugs, not by the police tactics designed to minimize their casualties when making drug busts. But it keeps bothering me even after that's said, I don't know why. The combination of no-knock warrants or short-knock policies that make knocking superfluous (as if the waiting time before breaking the door down were ten seconds), the frequent SWAT raids, the raids that occasionally hit the houses of innocent people... it's a poisonous combination.

[Alyeska]

No knock warrants scare the hell out of me. I live in a three story house. The living space starts on the 2nd floor. If they come knocking in the middle of the night, I'm on the third floor. I won't hear shit except noise of people entering my house.

It takes me 30 seconds to respond to a door bell on a good day when I'm on the third floor. I can barely hear it up stairs. If I have my computer on, no way will I hear it.

The police have policies in place designed to protect the police. These policies are not designed to protect the citizens. And when they start using these heavy handed tactics on non-violent offenders, the risks to innocent people increase dramaticaly.

The police are not protecting society when they use these tactics such as they are. They become a threat to society.

[Thanas]

Same here. If I am having a cup of tea and listening to music or reading or working, I really doubt I would hear the sort of announcement they gave. And if I am sleeping, I really doubt I would hear any of it.

[ShadowDragon8685]

I'm about a meter and a half from my door, but if I've got the music pumping, if I've got a videogame going loud in my head (I wear headphones so I don't disturb my aunt and uncle) or loud pornography or something, I'm not going to hear the "announce," all I'll hear is the loud crash and smash when they bust in my uncle's antique door.

Most people's reaction to hearing a loud smashing sound from a meter and a half behind them is going to be fight or flight - and I'm boxed in with literally nowhere to go and no maneuver room, which leaves me with only "fight."

Alyeska has the right of it. These policies are not designed to protect and serve the civilian population, they're designed to protect and serve the SWAT team, and they're doing so in a manner that directly puts civilians at risk of bodily harm and death from trigger-happy SWAT officers who see a hard-boiled, Uzi-carrying gangster in everybody.

You know, here's an idea. Why don't they try ringing up the house while they're outside and have the place surrounded, tell them the water's been turned off and the police are here to execute a search warrant, so kindly gather everyone inside up and come out and have a nice quiet chat while they search the place?

There's no ambiguity whatsoever there, because you've absolutely made contact with the persons inside, and if they hang up, don't come out or whatever, there's no ambiguity when going in.


Oh wait, they can't do that, because then they might manage to flush something down the hopper, and heaven forbid a kilo of coke goes down the john. Can the average household hopper even manage to flush down a kilo without leaving some residue on the bowl?

Why not make "disposal of drugs" an offense high enough to replace "possession of <extreme amount of drugs>" so that if they DO flush something, you can swab the hopper, find the residue on it and string 'em up that a way, too?

[Kamakazie Sith]

No, so far as I know they hit the house they were aiming for. But there have been cases of the SWAT team hitting the wrong house: going to the wrong address, breaking someone's door down and basically shouting and shoving everyone into submission at best. Since that is, after all, what they do during a raid; that's the point of having a specialized assault squad.

But if the SWAT team occasionally raids the wrong house (which happens), and if SWAT teams sometimes shoot people who weren't threatening them and/or destroy property... predictably, sometimes they're going to ransack the wrong house or even kill one of the occupants. That's just a matter of arithmetic.

Your concern is very reasonable. Especially given the outcome of this particular incident. The video doesn't tell us much about how Blair was reacting to the situation. However, when the officer who shoots him says that Blair wasn't advancing aggressively then I find it unacceptable that the DA could clear him.

And this can even happen because of the reactions of ordinary people who hear "Police! Search Warrant!" at the door and react accordingly (run for the door and hope you get there before they break it down, but don't make it). Let alone the possibility that someone will wake up and assume they're the targets of a break-in attempt.

Which is why I think Uraniun has a point: the whole point of this exercise is to surprise the occupants, which means that some fraction of them will inevitably react in ways that the SWAT team will find ambiguous and therefore threatening for perfectly natural reasons, even with no criminal intent whatsoever.

SWAT teams are trained to deal with aggressive individuals without resorting to lethal force. There are specific techniques trained to deal with a man rushing the door. Will these techniques be nice? No. Will they kill? No.

And sure, this may well be a problem caused by the War on Drugs, not by the police tactics designed to minimize their casualties when making drug busts. But it keeps bothering me even after that's said, I don't know why. The combination of no-knock warrants or short-knock policies that make knocking superfluous (as if the waiting time before breaking the door down were ten seconds), the frequent SWAT raids, the raids that occasionally hit the houses of innocent people... it's a poisonous combination.

Make no mistake. It is caused by the war on drugs. The police are given directives and are expected to pursue them. Like my example of the drug operations in this park. We're not making a difference at all arresting homeless drug dealers but the politicians LOVE the stats and those politicians are in charge. They tell us what to do.

[Kamakazie Sith]

I'm about a meter and a half from my door, but if I've got the music pumping, if I've got a videogame going loud in my head (I wear headphones so I don't disturb my aunt and uncle) or loud pornography or something, I'm not going to hear the "announce," all I'll hear is the loud crash and smash when they bust in my uncle's antique door.

Most people's reaction to hearing a loud smashing sound from a meter and a half behind them is going to be fight or flight - and I'm boxed in with literally nowhere to go and no maneuver room, which leaves me with only "fight."

Alyeska has the right of it. These policies are not designed to protect and serve the civilian population, they're designed to protect and serve the SWAT team, and they're doing so in a manner that directly puts civilians at risk of bodily harm and death from trigger-happy SWAT officers who see a hard-boiled, Uzi-carrying gangster in everybody.

You know, here's an idea. Why don't they try ringing up the house while they're outside and have the place surrounded, tell them the water's been turned off and the police are here to execute a search warrant, so kindly gather everyone inside up and come out and have a nice quiet chat while they search the place?

There's no ambiguity whatsoever there, because you've absolutely made contact with the persons inside, and if they hang up, don't come out or whatever, there's no ambiguity when going in.


Oh wait, they can't do that, because then they might manage to flush something down the hopper, and heaven forbid a kilo of coke goes down the john. Can the average household hopper even manage to flush down a kilo without leaving some residue on the bowl?

Why not make "disposal of drugs" an offense high enough to replace "possession of <extreme amount of drugs>" so that if they DO flush something, you can swab the hopper, find the residue on it and string 'em up that a way, too?

Shadowdragon. We've covered this before. The raids are carried out the way they are for two reasons. To perserve evidence AND to prevent a suspect from barricading himself. For example, Lovelle Mixon was able to barricade himself. He knew SWAT was coming in. He managed to kill two highly experienced SWAT officers and injure a third before being killed himself.

However, I agree that no knock warrants should only be executed on individuals with a violent history. A non-violent drug addict doesn't qualify in my opinion.

[Simon_Jester]

And this can even happen because of the reactions of ordinary people who hear "Police! Search Warrant!" at the door and react accordingly (run for the door and hope you get there before they break it down, but don't make it). Let alone the possibility that someone will wake up and assume they're the targets of a break-in attempt.

Which is why I think Uraniun has a point: the whole point of this exercise is to surprise the occupants, which means that some fraction of them will inevitably react in ways that the SWAT team will find ambiguous and therefore threatening for perfectly natural reasons, even with no criminal intent whatsoever.

SWAT teams are trained to deal with aggressive individuals without resorting to lethal force. There are specific techniques trained to deal with a man rushing the door. Will these techniques be nice? No. Will they kill? No.

Well, assuming there's nothing in the occupant's hand. And that they're not unusually unlucky...

See, if we start from a position of facing facts, of "Yes, 0.1% * of all SWAT team assaults on houses result in a person with no hostile intent getting shot as a result of a mistake on the SWAT team's part or ambiguous actions on the occupant's part. Yes, that means that for every 1000 SWAT team assaults one person will be killed or injured by police regardless of whether they intended to attack police..." then we would be in a good position to discuss the merits of the use of SWAT teams.

However, neither politicians nor (as far as I can tell) police are interested in starting from that point. Because it's very difficult to start from there and not end up saying either:

"It's OK for police to injure random people who got unlucky."
or
"We should use SWAT teams quite a lot more carefully."

*Made-up number for example- but whatever the real number is, it definitely isn't 0%.

Make no mistake. It is caused by the war on drugs. The police are given directives and are expected to pursue them. Like my example of the drug operations in this park. We're not making a difference at all arresting homeless drug dealers but the politicians LOVE the stats and those politicians are in charge. They tell us what to do.

Fine.

What bothers me, and this may be a fundamental flaw in our system of government, is that there's no mechanism to force the politicians to accept the consequences of their actions. More importantly, there's no way to make them accept "ownership" of those consequences: admit that yes they are okay with the negative consequences of their own policies, or work to limit those consequences.

Honestly, I think that's a problem with the police too, at least so long as we see relatively minor punishmment of officers in cases like this, or the case Shep linked to, of a man in Northern Virginia getting shot dead while being arrested for being entrapped* into high-stakes gambling.

When a government official, supports, promotes, or enforces a policy which will predictably harm innocent people, they should be prepared to admit to the harm. And they should be prepared either to act to minimize the harm, or to make a public case that the harm is acceptable.

*As far as I'm concerned, anyway...

[ShadowDragon8685]

Shadowdragon. We've covered this before. The raids are carried out the way they are for two reasons. To perserve evidence AND to prevent a suspect from barricading himself. For example, Lovelle Mixon was able to barricade himself. He knew SWAT was coming in. He managed to kill two highly experienced SWAT officers and injure a third before being killed himself.

However, I agree that no knock warrants should only be executed on individuals with a violent history. A non-violent drug addict doesn't qualify in my opinion.

What, exactly, can a man who's barricaded himself do? They had a word for that kind of situation, a long long time ago on a continent not-so-far-away. It's called "siege."

If a guy barricades himself in alone, that's great. Not only do you have control over him, since he's not going anywhere you don't allow him to, but time is on your side. Cut off his water, if necessary send some men to his roof to disable any passive water collection devices he may have, and block off all but one of the potential exits from his place. Congratulations, the guy's dehydrated, if you choose not to allow it he's not getting any sleep, and if he takes extreme enough measures to get sleep despite the walls of his house being banged on at all times of the day and night you can sneak in and ambush him while he's sleeping. Or, just wait him out. He'll come out once he's thirsty enough.


"But he might come out shooting."

Well, yeah. And if he's that much of a psycho, it's probably a good thing you have the area barricaded, everybody behind cover, and sharpshooters in place to cover the only exit to the house you've allowed to remain open.

[Thanas]

He can dispose of evidence, call friends via his cell phone or do a number of things, like shutting down the entire neighbourhood.

You do not want a siege situation if you can avoid it.

[ShadowDragon8685]

He can dispose of evidence, call friends via his cell phone or do a number of things, like shutting down the entire neighbourhood.

You do not want a siege situation if you can avoid it.

Cell phone signals can be jammed, you know. In fact I'm pretty sure most bomb squads have very powerful jammers. Also, you can serve the cell company orders to shut off his service.

There's a lot he can do, yes, but how exactly is he supposed to dispose of all this evidence? If you've shut off the water, he's got one flush per hopper in the house. Anything he burns can be forensically analyzed, and slapped onto him as additional obstruction charges.

It's not like he has a Star Trek-ian transporter he can use to disassociate stuff into component atoms. About the only evidence he can really, truely fuck up would be writings or electronic media.


It's always "dispose of evidence" that I keep hearing.

I am saying that it is my opinion that it is worth letting someone get in a flush or two (and only powdery stuff like narcotics is really going down the bowl; you're not disposing of a murder weapon down the john) rather than continue to conduct these hostile "storm the building" raids where people and pets are at a high risk of being shot by hyped-up SWAT officers on a crusade to stop the Bad Guys and assured that their cause is righteous.

[Hamstray]

It's always "dispose of evidence" that I keep hearing.

I am saying that it is my opinion that it is worth letting someone get in a flush or two (and only powdery stuff like narcotics is really going down the bowl; ...).

I'd actually not be surprised if they then manage to pull it out of the sewage and it were still be able to mysteriously disappear from the evidence vault to find its way onto the street. In a purely theoretical sense at least, not wanting to make any implications on corruption here. Though corrupt cops might still try to push a raid to get access to higher quality stuff.

[ShadowDragon8685]

That's... A really heavy allegation to make.

Have you ever heard of corrupt cops conducting a drug raid solely to acquire more product for themselves?

[Thanas]

That's... A really heavy allegation to make.

Have you ever heard of corrupt cops conducting a drug raid solely to acquire more product for themselves?

In the town where I lived in Lousiana the local police was well known to be selling stuff off duty. And there have been documented court cases.

That said, a siege situation is not a good thing for a neighbourhood to happen and I fully support the cops in going in. I just disagree with the methods displyed here.

Cell phone signals can be jammed, you know. In fact I'm pretty sure most bomb squads have very powerful jammers. Also, you can serve the cell company orders to shut off his service.

Getting this into position takes time and usually with the number of weapons served it would be too costly or impossible to have jammers available every time.

There's a lot he can do, yes, but how exactly is he supposed to dispose of all this evidence? If you've shut off the water, he's got one flush per hopper in the house. Anything he burns can be forensically analyzed, and slapped onto him as additional obstruction charges.

Just throwing it out of his window would be enough to create some doubt - and police cameras do take a lot of time to be set up to cover everything. Besides, you really do not want the guy to be able to take hostages. People will take family members or themselves as hostages if necessary.

[Kamakazie Sith]

What, exactly, can a man who's barricaded himself do? They had a word for that kind of situation, a long long time ago on a continent not-so-far-away. It's called "siege."

If a guy barricades himself in alone, that's great. Not only do you have control over him, since he's not going anywhere you don't allow him to, but time is on your side. Cut off his water, if necessary send some men to his roof to disable any passive water collection devices he may have, and block off all but one of the potential exits from his place

No, a barricade is not great. Depending on the size of the department barricades can take up a lot of manpower. You need to ensure that the house is contained. You need officers to close off the streets and evacuate neighboors. What if another incident happens in the city? What are you going to do then? The police have a responsibility to provide services to an entire city and that responsibility does not end because some asshole decides to not come out.

However, even if manpower isn't an issue and let's just say that his guy isn't a survivalist and has just the standard food and drink his house (which the police would not know). I'm not a survivalist. I don't have a surplus of food just in case of emergencies (I probably should). I just go the grocery store twice a month. Based on the food and liquids I currently have I could easily survive for a week.

Now with that in mind. How long are you going to keep the neighbors out of their homes because we evacuate them so they aren't at risk if the guy starts shooting?

Congratulations, the guy's dehydrated, if you choose not to allow it he's not getting any sleep, and if he takes extreme enough measures to get sleep despite the walls of his house being banged on at all times of the day and night

LMAO. Wow. I'll tell you what you can go bang on the walls to keep him awake. If the barricaded man decides to shoot you through the wall I'll call your mom and tell her that you died a brave man trying to save the life of a troubled person. Thanks for the comedy relief. I was truly laughing out loud.

you can sneak in and ambush him while he's sleeping.

You mean like we should have done in the first place before tactical genius Shadow "I have all the answers" Dragon took control? Except in your version he's had a chance to gather weapons and maybe fortify the place he's sleeping.

Or, just wait him out. He'll come out once he's thirsty enough.

Which could potentially last several days. Now you've displaced several families when you could have peacefully took this guy into custody by executing a no knock warrant at night. Yes, the majority of no knock warrant services end peacefully. One ship sinks and you're like "nooo stop oceans too dangerous". That's life man. I don't agree with the outcome of the raid in the OP. I think the cop should have been charged, however, regardless of that outcome raids are executed the way they are because they have the best overall result.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Cell phone signals can be jammed, you know. In fact I'm pretty sure most bomb squads have very powerful jammers. Also, you can serve the cell company orders to shut off his service.

You're sure? Not all departments are created equal.

There's a lot he can do, yes, but how exactly is he supposed to dispose of all this evidence? If you've shut off the water, he's got one flush per hopper in the house. Anything he burns can be forensically analyzed, and slapped onto him as additional obstruction charges.

It's always "dispose of evidence" that I keep hearing.

Yes, it's the job of the police to secure evidence. Drugs have been deemed a matter worth high attention from the police by the public and the representatives that serve the public. I don't get why that is so outrageous to you? Ok, so you hate the war on drugs. Your attention should be directed at the politicans and the public that continues to push this war. I'm not saying you shouldn't be pissed at the police for fucking something up because you should. However, being pissed at the police for simply doing their jobs is fucking retarded.

You're pretty much saying "The police should disobey the orders of the public via the elected officials." You do realize that, right?

I am saying that it is my opinion that it is worth letting someone get in a flush or two (and only powdery stuff like narcotics is really going down the bowl; you're not disposing of a murder weapon down the john) rather than continue to conduct these hostile "storm the building" raids where people and pets are at a high risk of being shot by hyped-up SWAT officers on a crusade to stop the Bad Guys and assured that their cause is righteous.

Actually, it's more to keep our jobs because we're given a directive by our superiors rather than being righteous...don't let that distinction stop you though. Also, I dispute your claim of them being at high risk. Do you have a figure to support your claim that you or your pet is at high risk of being shot during a raid?

I'll break it down for you. The voters say to the mayor that they want drugs off the streets. The mayor directs the chief to increase drug arrests and shut down drug dealer operations. The Chief selects Officer ShadowDragon to head this operation. Officer ShadowDragon doesn't meet the established goals. Mayor goes to the Chief and tells him to either replace ShadowDragon or find a new job. The Chief goes to ShadowDragon and replaces him. ShadowDragon is now at workforce services looking for a job to feed his three kids and to pay for the morgage.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Well, assuming there's nothing in the occupant's hand. And that they're not unusually unlucky...

See, if we start from a position of facing facts, of "Yes, 0.1% * of all SWAT team assaults on houses result in a person with no hostile intent getting shot as a result of a mistake on the SWAT team's part or ambiguous actions on the occupant's part. Yes, that means that for every 1000 SWAT team assaults one person will be killed or injured by police regardless of whether they intended to attack police..." then we would be in a good position to discuss the merits of the use of SWAT teams.

However, neither politicians nor (as far as I can tell) police are interested in starting from that point. Because it's very difficult to start from there and not end up saying either:

Why do you say that? You seem to be of the opinion that if something isn't 100% risk free then it shouldn't be done. You do know that cops are human, right? This job is dangerous. People and cops die all the time. You have more of a chance of dying in a car crash than you do dying in a SWAT raid. So, I'm just confused why suddenly .1% is a number worth discussion when we both know damn well that the world isn't perfect and people make mistakes.

What needs to be discussed is why this officer wasn't brought up on charges. That's the issue that needs to be pushed.

"It's OK for police to injure random people who got unlucky."
or
"We should use SWAT teams quite a lot more carefully."

SWAT teams are used against drug dealer houses for several reasons. Drug houses are known to have weapons. Not necessarily to be used against police but to be used against other criminals that will try to rob them. Also, you might know there are three people in the house. One male, and two females. What you don't know is that the one male is a wanted felon for murder and has the attitude "I'm never going back to prison".

SWAT is used because of the unknown. Your primary target could be a guy with a non-violent history. So what? I wish the Officer Down Memorial Page gave a detailed history of those people that shoot and kill police because what you will find, and no it won't be the majority, is the guy facing prison time for felony distribution who would rather die than be arrested for that. The tactics are based off lessons learned from many many years of drug raids where officers died because "well, he didn't have a violent history"

What bothers me, and this may be a fundamental flaw in our system of government, is that there's no mechanism to force the politicians to accept the consequences of their actions. More importantly, there's no way to make them accept "ownership" of those consequences: admit that yes they are okay with the negative consequences of their own policies, or work to limit those consequences.

I agree. There's no accountability from those in certain positions. The DA in this case should lose his job because he doesn't have what it takes to charge the officer with a crime.

Honestly, I think that's a problem with the police too, at least so long as we see relatively minor punishmment of officers in cases like this, or the case Shep linked to, of a man in Northern Virginia getting shot dead while being arrested for being entrapped* into high-stakes gambling.

I guess from the internal affairs department, yeah. However, it is the District Attorney (not a police officer) that decides whether a shooting is justified.

When a government official, supports, promotes, or enforces a policy which will predictably harm innocent people, they should be prepared to admit to the harm. And they should be prepared either to act to minimize the harm, or to make a public case that the harm is acceptable.

*As far as I'm concerned, anyway...

I agree

[Simon_Jester]

He can dispose of evidence, call friends via his cell phone or do a number of things, like shutting down the entire neighbourhood.
You do not want a siege situation if you can avoid it.

Cell phone signals can be jammed, you know. In fact I'm pretty sure most bomb squads have very powerful jammers. Also, you can serve the cell company orders to shut off his service.

Thanas is right, SD.

A siege is very nearly the worst possible outcome when the police are dealing with a criminal: for example, because it shuts down the whole neighborhood and ties up a huge amount of police manpower that can't be used to deal with other crimes elsewhere. It also carries the risk that the guy may have an exit you don't know about (in some urban neighborhoods, buildings might be connected via tunnels).

About the only thing I can think of worse than a siege is a hostage crisis. You do not want sieges becoming a regular part of police work.

I am saying that it is my opinion that it is worth letting someone get in a flush or two (and only powdery stuff like narcotics is really going down the bowl; you're not disposing of a murder weapon down the john) rather than continue to conduct these hostile "storm the building" raids where people and pets are at a high risk of being shot by hyped-up SWAT officers on a crusade to stop the Bad Guys and assured that their cause is righteous.

That is a totally separate issue.

I'd actually not be surprised if they then manage to pull it out of the sewage and it were still be able to mysteriously disappear from the evidence vault to find its way onto the street. In a purely theoretical sense at least, not wanting to make any implications on corruption here. Though corrupt cops might still try to push a raid to get access to higher quality stuff.

Hamstray? I gotta say... this is ridiculous. There have been and no doubt are police who sell drugs. That doesn't mean it's normal, or that (as even ShadowDragon pointed out) police would stage a drug raid specifically to acquire drugs to sell.

See, if we start from a position of facing facts, of "Yes, 0.1% * of all SWAT team assaults on houses result in a person with no hostile intent getting shot as a result of a mistake on the SWAT team's part or ambiguous actions on the occupant's part. Yes, that means that for every 1000 SWAT team assaults one person will be killed or injured by police regardless of whether they intended to attack police..." then we would be in a good position to discuss the merits of the use of SWAT teams.

However, neither politicians nor (as far as I can tell) police are interested in starting from that point. Because it's very difficult to start from there and not end up saying either:

Why do you say that? You seem to be of the opinion that if something isn't 100% risk free then it shouldn't be done.

That's the opposite of my opinion.

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.

"It's OK for police to injure random people who got unlucky."
or
"We should use SWAT teams quite a lot more carefully."

SWAT teams are used against drug dealer houses for several reasons. Drug houses are known to have weapons. Not necessarily to be used against police but to be used against other criminals that will try to rob them. Also, you might know there are three people in the house. One male, and two females. What you don't know is that the one male is a wanted felon for murder and has the attitude "I'm never going back to prison".

SWAT is used because of the unknown. Your primary target could be a guy with a non-violent history. So what? I wish the Officer Down Memorial Page gave a detailed history of those people that shoot and kill police because what you will find, and no it won't be the majority, is the guy facing prison time for felony distribution who would rather die than be arrested for that. The tactics are based off lessons learned from many many years of drug raids where officers died because "well, he didn't have a violent history"

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.

What bothers me, and this may be a fundamental flaw in our system of government, is that there's no mechanism to force the politicians to accept the consequences of their actions. More importantly, there's no way to make them accept "ownership" of those consequences: admit that yes they are okay with the negative consequences of their own policies, or work to limit those consequences.

[/quote]I agree. There's no accountability from those in certain positions. The DA in this case should lose his job because he doesn't have what it takes to charge the officer with a crime.

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).

[Highlord Laan]

Police are going to utilize the tactics that have been developed from lessons learned where cops were shot and killed.

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. 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."

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

[MKSheppard]

I've seen different models and they go from 5000 - 9000 and do weigh up to 65lbs. Though to be fair they probably would choose the cheapest model...lowest bidder and all.

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.

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.

During a drug raid the strategy is to get in quickly and obtain control of all property and persons in the room so evidence can't be destroyed.

Except that logic makes no sense.

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.

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.

I don't give a fuck whether you buy it or not. I'm telling you that in Utah there are SWAT teams that do not have ANY level III body armor. It's not debatable. It's a fact.

And your source for this is?

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.

I would like to see that number...provide it or concede.

Roid Head Cops 1

Gene Sanders, a police psychologist in Spokane, Wash., has worked extensively with police officers who are steroid abusers.

"If I were going to be conservative, I'd say that probably five percent of everyone who walks in my door either is using or has used steroids. This is getting to be a major problem," Sanders said.

Roid Head Cops 2

Seem high? While there are no empirical studies on the prevalence of steroids in law enforcement, the recent revelations that 248 police officers and firefighters from 53 agencies were tied to a Jersey City, N.J., physician gives some credence to Conte's estimate.

Roid Head Cops 3

Such incidents are sufficiently widespread that the DEA has published a pamphlet called Steroid Abuse by Law Enforcement Personnel, whose cover depicts two uniformed officers surrounded by floating syringes. Still, because juicing cops are a secretive subculture within a secretive subculture, experts have a hard time quantifying the problem. "Resoundingly, yes, I've heard many, many accounts of police officers taking steroids," says Harvard steroid specialist Harrison Pope, M.D., author of The Adonis Complex. "But it's impossible to put a number on it. Even if I got a federal grant to study this, I wouldn't be able to get that number, because of the veil of secrecy." Officer Jimmy, however, is less constrained. "Steroid use is very pervasive in law enforcement," insists the 26-year-old cop. "I'd say, of the cops I know, 20 percent to 25 percent of them are using."

Roid Head Cops 4

(Reuters) - Lawmakers in New Jersey are considering measures that would crack down on steroid use by police and firefighters, some of whom abuse the drugs in their efforts to keep physically fit, experts say.

The state Assembly bills introduced on Monday, believed to be the first of their kind in the nation, would require health evaluations before law enforcement could be prescribed anabolic steroids and growth hormones, and would add such drugs to a list of substances for which law enforcement employees are randomly tested.

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.

[Samuel]

I'm having trouble finding numbers. The best I can get is Cato:
http://www.cato.org/raidmap/

For all years:
raid on an innocent suspect 181
death of an innocent 45
nonviolent offenders killed 25

So we get 7 innocent people raided and 2 innocent people killed per year. Is that high? According to this
http://www.swatreform.org/about.shtml
swat teams conduct raids 50,000 times a year which means they screw up badly once every 5,000 times. Even if all the fatalities occured in one year it is only one screw up per 200 raids.

[Highlord Laan]

"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."

[Samuel]

"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."

Unless 1 in 10 of the guilty men you let go kill someone. You need to balance out "people who die due to your inaction" and "people you accidentally kill".

[Chaotic Neutral]

"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."

Unless 1 in 10 of the guilty men you let go kill someone. You need to balance out "people who die due to your inaction" and "people you accidentally kill".

Are we including the lives saved by ending the ban on drugs now? That throws the scale way out of whack.