A SWAT Raid Based On Faulty Info Kills a Man Over His ‘Huge Stash.’ Worth Maybe $2

[Glocktogo]

So charge them all with accessory to murder, excessive force, breaking and entering, destruction of property.....there's plenty of felony charges they should all be charged with. From Judge/DA right down to the point man.

There is zero excuse for law enforcement to not get serving any warrant right everytime. Knock or no knock, get it right or be charged and prosecuted with crimes.

Oh I agree on getting warrants right, but which AI is going to control it all? You don't seriously expect any human endeavor to be 100% perfect, do you? Seriously?

How about we compromise and say that any dynamic entry of an occupied domicile has to be vetted at a higher level and additional safeguards be put in place? Exigent circumstances don't require a warrant, but warrants served on a home to prevent a mala prohibita crimes should not be dynamic and should not be served in the middle of the night. They should also consider the rights of every occupant and not just the subject named on the warrant.

If I commit a crime while working for my company, you reckon the cops(or the FAA) will say, "oh, no sweat, you violated import/export laws, but we understand you were just doing your job"?

Probably not.

Actually, the answer is it depends. If you do it in accordance with company policy, they'll most likely indemnify you and use you as a witness against the company. If you do it in contradiction of company policy, i.e., fraud, you'll most likely get prosecuted. In that case, you made the conscious decision to commit the crime. If it's a regulatory violation and you did it on behalf of the company, they'll still go after the company and leave it up to the company to go after you. If you did it for your own benefit, again, you made that call.

In criminal law, we still rely on motive, intent and opportunity. In the discussion at hand, the door kicker has no motive or intent to deprive the occupant of their rights. They're acting on a lawful warrant to interdict a crime. So unless you want to rewrite the ENTIRE U.S. legal system, which will effect every citizen equally, you're talking abouy a different set of legal rules for cops.

So it's all well and good to have an emotion based opinion on the subject (and I don't necessarily disagree with those being expressed here), but that's not how stuff works.

 

[TedKennedy]

In the discussion at hand, the door kicker has no motive or intent to deprive the occupant of their rights.

I doubt the door kicker gave any thought to the occupant's rights at all.

And for your answer "it depends" that may or may not be true, justice depends on the mood of the investigator/prosecutor. One thing is certain, if I do in fact get caught breaking the law, whether following policy or no, DHS is not going to turn a blind eye, and say "he was just doing his job". Nor will I be afforded paid administrative leave.

 

[Dave70968]

Oh I agree on getting warrants right, but which AI is going to control it all? You don't seriously expect any human endeavor to be 100% perfect, do you? Seriously?

No, I fully expect humans to make mistakes. When we mere mortals make mistakes, though, we're held accountable: civil suits for damages, possibly criminal charges. The professional insurance (malpractice, errors and omissions, etc.) market exists specifically because of this liability. When government agents make mistakes, they're shielded from civil liability by qualified immunity, and criminal liability by "procedures were followed."

I'd lay substantial odds that if we did away with qualified immunity, police would be a lot more careful.

How about we compromise and say that any dynamic entry of an occupied domicile has to be vetted at a higher level and additional safeguards be put in place? Exigent circumstances don't require a warrant, but warrants served on a home to prevent a mala prohibita crimes should not be dynamic and should not be served in the middle of the night. They should also consider the rights of every occupant and not just the subject named on the warrant.

I agree entirely with this. I'd also add in liability, with punitive damages for gross negligence, such as not verifying sources.

 

[rawhide]

I agree. The person that arbitrarily says lets hit this house with a no-knock should bear the ultimate responsibly.

And/or be the first one through the door.

 

[Glocktogo]

I doubt the door kicker gave any thought to the occupant's rights at all.

And for your answer "it depends" that may or may not be true, justice depends on the mood of the investigator/prosecutor. One thing is certain, if I do in fact get caught breaking the law, whether following policy or no, DHS is not going to turn a blind eye, and say "he was just doing his job". Nor will I be afforded paid administrative leave.

How do you know? As someone who conducts DHS investigations, I'm disagreeing with you. Care to describe why you're right and I'm wrong?

 

[Glocktogo]

No, I fully expect humans to make mistakes. When we mere mortals make mistakes, though, we're held accountable: civil suits for damages, possibly criminal charges. The professional insurance (malpractice, errors and omissions, etc.) market exists specifically because of this liability. When government agents make mistakes, they're shielded from civil liability by qualified immunity, and criminal liability by "procedures were followed."

I'd lay substantial odds that if we did away with qualified immunity, police would be a lot more careful.


I agree entirely with this. I'd also add in liability, with punitive damages for gross negligence, such as not verifying sources.

Would you also like to prosecute doctors who make medical mistakes with murder? Psychiatrists who make mistakes with assisted suicide?

Certain high risk fields require some level of protection from criminal charges on obvious mistakes with no intent. Without it, we'd have no doctors, firefighters, paramedics, cops, etc.

I wholeheartedly agree with the civil liability and agencies frequently pay out on claims involving procedural errors. I also agree that in this case and similar ones, the raid supervisor/planner/investigator in charge of requesting the raid should have their QI rescinded. That would send the appropriate message to the people who actually make these bad decisions.

 

[aarondhgraham]

Civil lawsuits be damned!

The man is dead for crying out loud!

Whoever wrote the authorization for the no knock entry should be prosecuted for murder!

.

 

[Glocktogo]

Civil lawsuits be damned!

The man is dead for crying out loud!

Whoever wrote the authorization for the no knock entry should be prosecuted for murder!

.

I think that's pretty much what we're all saying.

 

[sh00ter]

Yeah the problem is, if the cops ARE wrong you have no recourse AT THE TIME and must wait to sue "if" you survive. Apparently that fact may have been the motivation for this law in Indiana I recall hearing about back when it was passed:

http://theweek.com/articles/474702/indiana-law-that-lets-citizens-shoot-cops

Of course, nobody here hopes that this situation ever happens to them or the cops but at the end of the day, every man is born with the right to self-defense given to him by his Creator.

 

[R. Johnson]

Just following orders wasn't a defense in the Nuremberg Trials. It's not a defense here. Look, I'm not opposed to police agencies having a certain level of military style equipment and training, because there are events like the LA massacre, and you have to be able to respond to that sort of thing. Tactical teams, however, should be used extremely sparingly. An oath is an oath. The job of the police is to protect the civil liberties of the citizens. You protect them no matter what, even if it means you have to protect the citizens from your own boss. It's the same oath regardless of if you're the chief of police, or the point man in a raid. No excuses.