I think this issue is less about blaming a cop for capping someone when they pointed a loaded weapon at them, and more about not sending ****ing swat teams into peoples' houses in the middle of the night. This could've been dealt with by phoning her and asking her to come down to the police station. Bursting into a random, harmless and non-threatening (as in, non-threatening before you perform a home invasion) is not acceptable in a free country.

I don't think anyone is really blaming the cops for shooting her, although their changing testimonies are pretty much bull**** and they should be disciplined for lying in their testimonies.

depends on the gun... some guns (usually those with extremely light triggers [READ: so light that it's actually a safety issue]) can go off when the gun falls

Warning the occupant, or asking her to come in would have entirely defeated the purpose. She, if she did have drug paraphernalia, would have destroyed or reclocated it immediately upon discovering the inentions of the police. An unannounced entry was the best way to gather evidence, although the necessity of SWAT is debatable. I don't know all that the police knew prior to the search, although the article did mention other raids in the same neighborhood.

I know I'd feel a whole lot safer if I knew the cops were calling criminals and asking them to come on down to the police station. That would work in an ideal owrld, but in an ideal world, there wouldn't be crime either.

But don't you agree that not all crimes require a SWAT team and/or breaking into someone's house? Do you honestly think that this woman wouldn't have showed her face and explained herself?

Yeah, I don't know what kind of freaky utopia-with-crime you live in, but I'm pretty sure if the cops called her and asked her to come down to the police station and bring any incriminating evidence she might have in her house with her down, too, if she had any she'd be ditching it in a river.

They felt they needed to search the house, got a warrant to do so (meaning, i hope, that they had enough probable cause to WARRANT a SEARCH) and began working on how to search it. They apparently had information leading them to believe she had a gun and might use it (that information probably being past reports of her having a gun and pointing it at people on a few occasions) so they decided that sending in regular police might not be the best idea. Who knows if this lady is crazy or not? For all they know they send a cop to her door and he knocks politely and says "excuse me ma'am, I'm the police and we have a search warrant, would you kindly let me in?" Meanwhile she's in the bathroom flushing bottles of pills down the toilet. Or worse, she's loading rounds into her gun. Cops work based on worst-case scenarios, or they die. So obviously they can't knock politely, they have to check the house without her having time to remove any evidence. So, they get this apparent no-knock warrant (i didn't know this happened until now, but I understand why it exists). Worst case scenario, the police officer busts in...and gets pumped full of bullets because the lady has a gun and is very protective. SO, they use the swat team, armored and trained to handle dangerous situations like that, to handle the worst case scenario. Guess what? They bust in and the worst case scenario has come true, she's standing there point a gun at them. They defend themselves.

"well, when this is a possibility they just shouldn't risk it!"
Then NO ONE would EVER be arrested because everyone would just get a gun and the cops would never be able to risk anything. Where do you draw the line? No longer pulling people over because they might run from the cops and endanger civilians? Because they might just blow the cop away when he walks up to the window.

Again I say, this ain't utopia. Sometimes no-win situations exist.

And regarding her showing her face and explaining herself...that is quite silly. The only time she's going to show her face and explain herself is if she's innocent, and what good does that do anyone? It's not the job of the police to go around proving people innocent. Likewise, it's not their job to prove them guilty.

Yes, looking at it after the fact. However, they believed she was a drug dealer. Police don't call drug dealers and ask them to come turn themselves in. As Steven said, if she had been a hardcore drug dealer, she would have dumped her stash or jumped ship.

The question that should be addressed is the reliability of the information that the police got from the informamnt, not the use of the SWAT team.

[QUOTE=Connection Problem]This could've been dealt with by phoning her and asking her to come down to the police station.[/QUOTE]
I lol'ed

Or how the police squeeze information from informants...

Is that seriously that ridiculous? Damn, I didn't know that the SWAT team got sent in every time someone calls crimestoppers.

They don't. They get called to serve felony warrants, especially those where the suspects are thought to be armed.

Yes it's ridiculous!
1. Criminals don't TURN THEMSELVES IN. Nor do they incriminate themselves by providing evidence of their criminal activities. The fact that you think they do is really really disturbing.
2. The SWAT team is not like in the movies, or in counter strike. Their job is not to go in and eliminate all targets in an area. They are used when special weapons and tactics are POSSIBLY required. They are specifically trained to handle very dangerous situations with armed suspects. SWAT teams are for added protection. Do you think that would have gone down any differently if they had been regular police officers in regular gear?

They still would have busted in, but they'd have less armor and less effective weapons. They'd still have encountered the woman with a gun pointed at them, and they would have reacted the same way. The only difference is, MAYBE, since they would have pistols instead of automatic weapons, the first surprised shot wouldn't have been followed quite as quickly by the next 3, maybe it wouldn't have been aimed as well, maybe her aim wouldn't have been thrown as much and her gun might have fired at the officers. Oh, and then maybe it would have hit one in his head, which would not have a helmet on it, and then there'd be 2 dead bodies on the floor.

The problem here was the idiot in charge decided to use a SWAT team based evidence off of some anonymous tipper, without looking for further evidence. It's his fault and he should loose his job. The SWAT team did its job; the guy in charge didn't, and a woman got killed.

Blaming the SWAT team is like blaming the firing squad when someone is wrongfully sentenced to die.

The decision to use SWAT was correct based on the information they had.

What's the reasoning for that, Avenger?

But their sources were total crap. They should have considered that before using the SWAT team.

There is no one 'idiot in charge' to be blamed, because the guy who determines which guys get sent is not the guy who signs the warrant.

Did any of you bother to read this?



Hmm..yeah..real peaceful person, eh? Threatening a TELEVISION TECH at gunpoint?

That, in and of itself, justlfies use of a SWAT team.

[QUOTE=Connection Problem]What's the reasoning for that, Avenger?[/QUOTE]

Because they were serving a felony drug warrant.



That should have been taken care of by the officer who put in for the warrant and the judge who granted it. SWAT is given a felony drug warrant to serve, they serve the warrant.

So we have someone illegally distributing prescription medication with a record of criminal threatening?

And some are still saying that a SWAT unit was not justified?

So, Lee, you're saying that a SWAT unit, the guys who write the books on urban combat, the same tactics that are then passed onto the most elite military units, are justified for raiding a woman's house for giving away 2 pills? Is your fly swatter of the .45 caliber variety?

You were saying?

Hindsight is 20/20. Unfortunately, you don't have it until after the fact.

Your mixing what they knew before and what they knew after the fact.

Oh, that's right, I was saying that they didn't know what they were getting into...and sent a SWAT unit in to deal with it instead of assessing the reliability of the information of the informant.

The informant purchased drugs. Are you really this daft?

"Purchaced" drugs. The victim's side was the informant asked for drugs as a favor until their prescription was filled. I personally have given someone oxygen after a dive mishap. Am I legally allowed to administer oxygen, a toxin that requires the same licensing to distribute as any medicine, to someone else? No, my papers say I'm only allowed to aquire it for my own personal use. Do I deserve to have a SWAT team bust into my house at night? You tell me.

I did miss that part. Is it in the original article posted?

I see that the problem is deeper that just blaming the cops for screwing this one up. The US is a country where its citizens have rights against unreasonable searches of their homes and person, where cops with a warrant have the right to approach someone ready to use deadly force, and citizens have the right to bear arms. The last right is not one that I consider a right in my "ideal" world.

If the model US citizen owns a firearm and is prepared to use it against an intruder, it seems that said citizen is pretty much ****ed if the cops somehow get misinformation and bust into your home.

[QUOTE=Connection Problem]I did miss that part. Is it in the original article posted?

I see that the problem is deeper that just blaming the cops for screwing this one up. The US is a country where its citizens have rights against unreasonable searches of their homes and person, where cops with a warrant have the right to approach someone ready to use deadly force, and citizens have the right to bear arms. The last right is not one that I consider a right in my "ideal" world.

If the model US citizen owns a firearm and is prepared to use it against an intruder, it seems that said citizen is pretty much ****ed if the cops somehow get misinformation and bust into your home.[/QUOTE]

It's in the news story linked from the original story. Many people tend to love reading about one side of the situation..and couldn't care less about hearing the other side..



Did you go to someone's house and buy it? Do you have a record of criminal threatening?

You tell me.

[QUOTE=Connection Problem]I did miss that part. Is it in the original article posted?

I see that the problem is deeper that just blaming the cops for screwing this one up. The US is a country where its citizens have rights against unreasonable searches of their homes and person, where cops with a warrant have the right to approach someone ready to use deadly force, and citizens have the right to bear arms. The last right is not one that I consider a right in my "ideal" world.

If the model US citizen owns a firearm and is prepared to use it against an intruder, it seems that said citizen is pretty much ****ed if the cops somehow get misinformation and bust into your home.[/QUOTE]

You do not believe that citizens have the right to protect themselves..? Let's not go there in this thread, then..

No, see, the informant, or a friend of the informant went to her house. If that person had magically been teleported to my house after the accident, I would have still given them oxygen

I want to make this clear. I don't mind the police. They serve as an essential part of any society. I do not blame the officer who shot her himself, I agree with the decission to not punish him because honestly, these guys do have experience with very hostile environments with very hostile people hiding inside. I would have done the same, and made similar mistakes in my very limited stint of military training during MOUT sessions. I do not, however, agree with proceedures used in this case. The information was flawed, and they continued action anyway. There needs to be a retooling of this process as long as those fat old white men in congress still back this "war on drugs."

I'm not trying to debate that, but please respect my view on gun control as I am attempting to respect yours. You don't have to talk down to me just because I disagree with you on something.

And do you have a record of criminal threatening with a firearm? The information was not flawed. She had sold prescription medication. She was clearly armed. I fail to see what is incorrect.

[QUOTE=Connection Problem]I'm not trying to debate that, but please respect my view on gun control as I am attempting to respect yours. You don't have to talk down to me just because I disagree with you on something.[/QUOTE]

I had no intention of 'talking down' on you; I apologize if you are offended.

"Sold." Once more, it's the police's word against a dead woman's and her family's word.

And once more, you side with the victim without regard to the possibility that law enforcement may actually be correct.

For the third time, in order to answer your question:
Do you have a record of criminal threatening with a firearm?

No, no I do not. If I did, would you then agree that a SWAT team should be dispatched to my house tonight?

If you had a record of criminal threatening and if you were selling illegal medication to a police informant, I would see nothing wrong with a warrant + search.

I have nothing against the idea of a warrant + search. That didn't happen here. This is why I disagree.

You believe a patrol officer should have been dispatched to serve a search warrant on a armed and previously threatening individual?

I don't see anything in the article that says the pointman of the SWAT team, you know, the one that holds the ballistics shielding, offered any form of warrant.

Do you see anything in the law stating that they must stop and display one before entry?