SWAT guns down US Marine in home

[MaddSkillz]

This is the real danger. If a warrant is served on a residence, someone dies as a result, and no evidence of the crime outlined in the warrant is discovered, the entire investigation is suspect. The investigation itself should be reviewed by an outside agency or Grand Jury for evidence of negligence or wrongdoing.

If you kill a man in his own home serving a warrant, you'd damn well better be willing to show why you had justification to obtain the warrant. Sealing the case looks like an attempt to sweep things under the rug.

I also believe that SWAT serving a warrant for suspected drugs on a home where children are present is an unnecessary risk and tantamount to child endangerment. This is the one time where "do it for the kids" needs to be applied. In this case, wait till the suspect is outside the home to serve the warrant or until the kids are somewhere else.

Just call a spade a spade. That's exactly what it is.

 

[MaddSkillz]

Are drugs and money justification?

Not enough to endanger life, imo.

 

[Werewolf]

His status as a veteran and survivor of tours in Iraq is completely irrelevent to the case at hand. There are plenty of scumbags out there with DD214s....

Not saying he was into something dirty, but using his veteran status is an emotional appeal when what is really needed is facts and truth.

Good chance that I'll be punished for stating this but:

What is really needed are police departments with more peace officers and less para-military enforcement squads.

 

[inactive]

What is really needed are police departments with more peace officers and less para-military enforcement squads.

+1 on this, IMHO. I support law enforcement and enhanced weapons and tactics have their place sometimes. But how much of this is in existence as a direct result of our prohibition laws and targeted enforcement of those? See Hamsterdam

 

[Shadowrider]

This is the real danger. If a warrant is served on a residence, someone dies as a result, and no evidence of the crime outlined in the warrant is discovered, the entire investigation is suspect. The investigation itself should be reviewed by an outside agency or Grand Jury for evidence of negligence or wrongdoing.

If you kill a man in his own home serving a warrant, you'd damn well better be willing to show why you had justification to obtain the warrant. Sealing the case looks like an attempt to sweep things under the rug.

I also believe that SWAT serving a warrant for suspected drugs on a home where children are present is an unnecessary risk and tantamount to child endangerment. This is the one time where "do it for the kids" needs to be applied. In this case, wait till the suspect is outside the home to serve the warrant or until the kids are somewhere else.

I still wonder why the ACLU, La Raza, JJ and Sharpton, and any number of others aren't down there raising holy hell. Perhaps this is why the judge sealed it up? Add in the "apparent mistakes" in the execution of the warrant and I would be able to see some real problems for them.

Okay, maybe JJ and Sharpton can't really shake down a sheriff's department for a payoff, so I guess that explains their silence. But where are all the others? I would have thought that this would have went viral like the Indiana SC decision sort of did. Instead you gotta search this one up. Weird...

 

[Glocktogo]

Are drugs and money justification?

Depends. If you have evidence and knowledge of an ongoing criminal enterprise (drug sales or manufacturing), then probably so. The person committing the crime has the option of fully complying with the LEO's commands. The law needs to be changed on this topic in order to change that fact.

If you walk out with a dead "suspect" and a dime bag, absolutely not.

Just call a spade a spade. That's exactly what it is.

Not sure what you mean here. I'm saying that if you (the agency) kill a man in his home that doesn't contain evidence of an ongoing criminal enterprise, you need to do a LOT more than have the judge seal the case. Agencies need to operate with a certain level of transparency when it comes to high risk operations. This has nothing too do with shielding individual officers from unwarranted scrutiny. It has to do with shining a light on command decisions and ensuring that todays mistakes aren't repeated tomorrow.

Supposing that the raid did not in fact uncover criminal wrongdoing by the homeowner, the SWAT raid is the "cause in fact". "But for the SWAT raid, the homeowner would not have been killed." The "proximate cause" is the decision to conduct the raid. You have an area with high levels of drug sales. A decision is made to raid "drug houses". The subject's home is placed on the list. What standard of evidence is used to target the subject's home? What's the risk vs. the reward?

It isn't reasonable to expect a SWAT team to hold their fire when faced with an armed subject during a raid. It also isn't reasonable to expect an otherwise law abiding citizen to simply lay down and accept the violent entry of his home (particularly a former Marine). Therefore the burden should fall on Command to ensure that they do not forcibly enter a home without weighing all the risks associated, vs. the potential benefits. Simply saying "we need to take the bad guys off the streets" isn't good enough.

What's missing is Risk Management. In this case, regardless of whether the subject was indeed a drug dealer, they entered a home containing a four year old child and fired approximately 70 rounds into the home. It's reasonable to assume that they needlessly endangered the welfare of that child. It's obviously reasonable to assume they might meet armed resistance, otherwise they wouldn't enter in the fashion that they do. Therefore the command decision to forcibly enter the home without evidence that someone was in immediate danger (panicked screams, gunfire, etc.) didn't take into account an accurate risk management assessment. If I were counsel for the widow in this case, I'd pursue that aspect, along with depriving the deceased of his civil rights if he was indeed not in fact a drug dealer or associated with drug dealing.

Focusing on the SWAT team is a red herring. The focus should remain on the command decision to conduct the raid and the justification to do so. Agencies have considerable policies regarding use of force. It only stands to reason that they should have considerable policies for command staff when deciding to preemptively deploy heavily armed SWAT into an occupied dwelling. In this case, command staff used force (SWAT) that resulted in the death of a citizen. They need to articulate the necessity of that force in my opinion.

 

[MaddSkillz]

Not sure what you mean here.

What I mean is that I'm suspicious the investigation in which the documents are sealed do not justify this type of violent activity placing everyone at risk.

Which is why they're sealed.

 

[Glocktogo]

What I mean is that I'm suspicious the investigation in which the documents are sealed do not justify this type of violent activity placing everyone at risk.

Which is why they're sealed.

Agreed.

 

[Mechanicalmehem]

Gtg well stated.... What would be the possible consequences of legalizing "drugs" ie marijuana crack etc.? At least then it could be some what regulated like alcohol.... I don't do drugs. Don't agree with them... But tk each their own.... If legalizing (an taxing.. Defecit decreased) them would help in assisting their control would that not be a better option? Just hypotheticals here.... I dunno I beleive more checks (background) should have been completed before entry and it very well may have saved his life.... SWAT was simply doing their job.... How command needs a very serious review .... IMHO
--Mech

 

[MaddSkillz]

Gtg well stated.... What would be the possible consequences of legalizing "drugs" ie marijuana crack etc.? At least then it could be some what regulated like alcohol.... I don't do drugs. Don't agree with them... But tk each their own.... If legalizing (an taxing.. Defecit decreased) them would help in assisting their control would that not be a better option? Just hypotheticals here.... I dunno I beleive more checks (background) should have been completed before entry and it very well may have saved his life.... SWAT was simply doing their job.... How command needs a very serious review .... IMHO
--Mech

On every war on whatever (drugs, terrorism etc...) government benefits. Think about it.