9 horrifyingly botched police raids: How do we keep this from happening?

[Luzifer's right hand]

A change in culture? Violence as the last option for example.

I only follow these things loosely but sometimes it looks like the police in the US prefers an "It is better to risk injuries to innocent persons than to allow a guilty people to escape" approach.

The tough on crimes that are not really crimes approach also seems a bit counter-productive(someone mentioned the war on drugs).

Also if people expected a proper arrest instead of being shot for holding a remote control(or something similar) in their hands they might think twice about fighting back.

I also doubt the liberal use of tasers if helpful in de-escalating the circle of violence.

I would also expected a policeman who injures/kills an innocent person to face a trial and the permanent removal from police service should be the minimum.

[Robin Of House Hill]

Some police are already using non lethal weapons and it seems to be working.

When you allow police to kill a person, that eliminates the entire democratic process in favor of the officers heat of the moment decision

But allowing the criminal to kill the cop would be democratic?

So would people wrongfully killed by the police, apparently. Who knew?

The problem exists because cops know that it is very unlikely they will even be charged with a crime, in such circumstances, not because of the armament they have.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Police rule #1 in the US (ask any cop) is not "protect and serve". Rule #1 is "cops come home alive". Anything that makes an officer feel threatened is fair game for destruction. This culture can and will change with the end of the war on drugs.

[Daario's*before*Snows]

But allowing the criminal to kill the cop would be democratic?

No it wouldnt, you arent a criminal until you are convicted of a crime. Im suggesting that police switch to non lethal weapons to deal with immediate threats.

[Robin Of House Hill]

What non-lethal weapon would you choose if confronted with a .40 cal S&W?

[Kalbear]

What non-lethal weapon would you choose if confronted with a .40 cal S&W?

Flashbangs? Tear gas? A riot shield? Tasers? A batarang?

[Talleyrand]

Treat "wrong door" raids as what they are, felony crimes (breaking and entering, burglary, assault with a deadly weapon, false arrest, etc etc).

Does this include if an officer breaks down the wrong door under direct orders or only when their own error has made them do so?

(This is just for the breaking and entering, I agree with you on the other counts)

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Does this include if an officer breaks down the wrong door under direct orders or only when their own error has made them do so.

(This is just for the breaking and entering, I agree with you on the other counts)

Nuremburg defense?

Here's how you get a search warrant (from memory, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) - Officer has to get a judge to sign off on one. They do this by showing the judge sufficient evidence that a crime has probably taken place, as well as swear to personal knowledge that additional evidence is likely to be found in the property. They must specifically name the location to be searched, and the items they are searching for.

The only way to end up at a wrong door is to either be wrong (and thus lying to the judge) about which place it is you want to search, to be inept (show up at an address which is not listed on the search warrant), or to be corrupt (to do both).

If you are kicking down a door, I don't think it's a tremendous burden that you personally look at the search warrant and verify the address.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

If we do start charging police with crimes when they hit the wrong house will that not increase the incidences of planted evidence a police claim they "found" it there when they hitting wrong house?

[Robin Of House Hill]

It might, but if found out the charges would escalate.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

If we do start charging police with crimes when they hit the wrong house will that not increase the incidences of planted evidence a police claim they "found" it there when they hitting wrong house?

It doesn't matter. It is still a crime to break into a house without a warrant, regardless of what you find within.

[Daario's*before*Snows]

What non-lethal weapon would you choose if confronted with a .40 cal S&W?

Me personally? How close? If its pointed at my head I would prefer a knife.

Is the gun 50 yards away? Is the guy shooting other people and I need to stop him?

Do i have to use non lethal way in this scenario so ties in with the thread?

[baxus]

and knife is a non-lethal weapon?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

TGU,

Someone with more experince with criminal 4th amendment issues would have to answer that. I'm not sure.

[Luzifer's right hand]

If we do start charging police with crimes when they hit the wrong house will that not increase the incidences of planted evidence a police claim they "found" it there when they hitting wrong house?

Well if the police has such tendencies maybe it would be better to dismantle the existing organisations and start fresh? Of course you would have to create the new police force before you dismantle the old one which would be rather expensive.

[Daario's*before*Snows]

and knife is a non-lethal weapon?

Ok my hands, thats what non lethal weapon i would use,

For police, I realize technology isnt all the way there yet.

Taser will stop the vast majority of people but occassions a person might be so high on drugs they dont feel it. I think we are far enough for police not to be trained to go for the gun first.

When these situations happen where they think the suspect has a gun but he doesnt.

That benefit of the doubt should go to the citizen first, not the police.

They are there to protect us, thats what they sign up for.

Police suspicion does not make you a criminal.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

serve no knock raids, in error, 50 times to the same house.

Just to point out, this means that someone perjured themselves 50 times (or 50 people did), in the service of these warrants. The police have to swear under oath in order to get a warrant.

It also means that there is a really unscrupulous judge in that community is signing off on whatever warrants come across their desk. You would think they'd say "hey, I already signed off on 2 warrants for this house this week" at some point.

[Shryke]

Spockydog,

Because other nations don't have SWAT teams that are used to bust into people's homes or because police who are serving a warrant on the wrong house have to worry about a firearm being present?

No, not the same way or in the same frequency.

The fundamental problem here, imo, is the police in the US seem to treat this shit like it's a military operation. They are taking that fucking beach, just like in Saving Private Ryan! Except said beach is some guys porch. It's an attitude and culture among the US police force that seems fucking disturbing. And part of it at least, is because of the war on drugs and how the police all over the place are armed to "deal" with that "problem". But I don't think that's the whole of the issue. (although obviously ending the war on drugs would help alot)

[Fragile Bird]

Swat teams and breaking down doors and getting all dressed up in fancy gear seem to be so very sexy and masculine and studly for police, though, no? I mean, they are just the manly things to do. And it just cheeses me off that up here in Canada the police and their right-wing mouthpieces in the press explain to us that our police departments just don't have the stuff American police departments have, to go and bust down doors and face the drug dealers who are much better armed than the police force and we need more and more more.

Police rule #1 in the US (ask any cop) is not "protect and serve". Rule #1 is "cops come home alive". Anything that makes an officer feel threatened is fair game for destruction. This culture can and will change with the end of the war on drugs.

QFT. The attitude is the same in Canada. At least, the first half. I'm not sure it will end if drugs are de-criminalized/legalized.

I remember years and years ago being shocked when two police officers gunned down some poor shmuck who was pulled over by the officers for some driving violation, and when he got out of his car he put his hand in his pocket. Bad mistake, and he paid with his life. He was going to pull out a card that said he had a speech impediment. That story has coloured my attitude towards the US, police and guns my whole life.

ETA: happened in Florida, IIRC.

[Shryke]

Nuremburg defense?

Here's how you get a search warrant (from memory, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) - Officer has to get a judge to sign off on one. They do this by showing the judge sufficient evidence that a crime has probably taken place, as well as swear to personal knowledge that additional evidence is likely to be found in the property. They must specifically name the location to be searched, and the items they are searching for.

The only way to end up at a wrong door is to either be wrong (and thus lying to the judge) about which place it is you want to search, to be inept (show up at an address which is not listed on the search warrant), or to be corrupt (to do both).

If you are kicking down a door, I don't think it's a tremendous burden that you personally look at the search warrant and verify the address.

I think he was more saying while somebody is getting that warrant, not everyone serving the warrant has actually looked at it or knows the full details of the case and all that.

I mean, shit like the SWAT team is a specialised unit, is it not? They aren't investigating crimes, they are called in by the people investigating crimes to serve warrants and the like that other people got, yes?