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

[sologdin]

charged with some form of negligent homicide

the mechanism is already present in the criminal components of the US civil rights act, which makes willful or deliberately indifferent violation of ocnstitutional rights a deathable offense. fairly certain that's how they nailed some of the danziger bridge thugs in NOLA.

[Sturn]

charged with some form of negligent homicide

the mechanism is already present in the criminal components of the US civil rights act, which makes willful or deliberately indifferent violation of ocnstitutional rights a deathable offense. fairly certain that's how they nailed some of the danziger bridge thugs in NOLA.

[Kalbear]

No, it's still an accidental typo.

Could you answer this Tormund?

quite possibly yes. Though theft also has a you benefitting from it that this wouldn't have. As well as intent. Which from your example it doesn't. It would likely be some kind of property damage law I would think.

Sturn, here's the deal - cops are given powers that normal citizens do not have. If I barge into someone's house with a legal firearm I will be arrested for assault with a deadly weapon. Cops get to do that under very strict scrutiny. If they fuck up, innocent people die. I think it is completely reasonable to hold their screw ups to a significantly higher standard than someone accidentally killing someone via their car. If you don't think that is reasonable - that someone who can destroy someone else's property and life on a mistake as a matter of course should not be more heavily regulated - I feel even worse about the police in this country than I did before.

[felice]

On a Deliberate entry this is exactly what is done. Dynamic entries are typically only used for a very good reason. I don't recall ever being taught to go in "guns blazing".

What sort of thing constitutes a good reason for dynamic entry? "guns blazing" = hyperbole.

In my experience judges have never, "ensured all the supplied data matches". Affidavits for a search warrant are on a piece of paper with the address of the residence. There isn't an attached map

Why not? It's an effective safeguard against typos at minimal cost, and if you're going to be bashing down someone's door, you really want to be sure it's the right one.

If a mistake is still made and the wrong door is crushed and a person has a gun pointed at them, who if anyone should be serving time for intentional (the only kind) Criminal Damage to Property? Intentional Aggravated Assault? Should we throw the judge in jail too?

Depends how the nature of the mistake. I would expect the person who applied for the warrant should generally be in on the execution, and if they don't recognise that they've got the wrong address, a case for criminal negligence could be made. But I think addressing the systemic issues is a higher priority than assigning blame for specific incidents of things going wrong under an inadequate system.

Why do people shoot at cops? Aside from mistaken identity, my guess is the most common reason would be "mustn't get caught; got to run away; can't run or they'll shoot; got to shoot them first" - ie, cops routinely carrying guns makes it more likely that cops will be shot at. Is there any data available on motivations for shooting cops?

[Merentha]

I can give examples of exactly the opposite. I've mentioned a couple upthread.

You said, "fair trial". Do you believe the jurors are in on the corruption also? Is it the judge? Or are you arguing that the pedestal police are put on makes it hard in general for a jury to decide to convict a cop? I can understand the last point. The first two would be extremely rare. I could also point out times where a cop is convicted of something when a normal citizen is not would not be because the jury dislikes the cop or cops.

The last point, mostly, but also the idea that for a crime to be investigated, the police are the ones responsible for doing the investigation. I will say one thing, if it goes to trial, yeah, its probably relatively fair except for sentencing. Its getting to trial that's so hard, both for societal reasons and for the very simple reason that the police ultimately answer to the police. And that is somehow not immediately seen as an obvious contradiction.

charged with some form of negligent homicide

the mechanism is already present in the criminal components of the US civil rights act, which makes willful or deliberately indifferent violation of ocnstitutional rights a deathable offense. fairly certain that's how they nailed some of the danziger bridge thugs in NOLA.

So, Sturn, would submitting the 50th warrant for the house, improperly, count as deliberately indifferent? And should the person responsible for that warrant, and the judge, be charged with a deathable offense? What constitutes deliberately indifferent? How many would be? Just because there aren't laws for improperly creating a warrant doesn't mean we can't make them.

Why shouldn't someone entering the wrong house be charged with, at a minimum, negligent manslaughter (or whatever the equivalent is in their state)? Should we not expect that before someone is being granted the legal right to commit a felony, they are expected to take that power very, very seriously? And that if it is misused, the consequences be incredibly dire?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Merentha,

Sturn has said, downthread, that if someone is hurt or killed by a police screw up the officers shouldn't be protected by an, "Oops, my bad." defense.

[Sturn]

quite possibly yes. Though theft also has a you benefitting from it that this wouldn't have. As well as intent. Which from your example it doesn't. It would likely be some kind of property damage law I would think.

That was my point. If there's no intent you shouldn't be charging the cop either unless he did something wrong (again with intent) like violate an SOP, arrive drunk for the search warrant, etc. You know, just like a normal citizen.

Sturn, here's the deal - cops are given powers that normal citizens do not have. If I barge into someone's house with a legal firearm I will be arrested for assault with a deadly weapon. Cops get to do that under very strict scrutiny. If they fuck up, innocent people die. I think it is completely reasonable to hold their screw ups to a significantly higher standard than someone accidentally killing someone via their car. If you don't think that is reasonable - that someone who can destroy someone else's property and life on a mistake as a matter of course should not be more heavily regulated - I feel even worse about the police in this country than I did before.

No under what you describe I COMPLETELY agree and have said so over and over. The cops should be held to a strict scrutiny. They should be regulated. They just shouldn't be charged for a crime....when they didn't actually commit a crime. Is that easy enough to understand? Cops doing bad should be punished. If they do something willfully bad they should be punished for a crime. If they do something only accidentally wrong while following all other regulations/SOPs, they shouldn't be charged with a crime at all. That is the only thing I have a problem with.

Got to run off looks like I have to state a fourth time that I wasn't defending the 50 warrant incident....

[Sturn]

What sort of thing constitutes a good reason for dynamic entry? "guns blazing" = hyperbole.

Sorry, can't post in an open forum.

Why not? It's an effective safeguard against typos at minimal cost, and if you're going to be bashing down someone's door, you really want to be sure it's the right one.

Don't know. I guess you would have to ask the judges.

Depends how the nature of the mistake. I would expect the person who applied for the warrant should generally be in on the execution, and if they don't recognise that they've got the wrong address, a case for criminal negligence could be made.

I agree and I've never seen a situation where the investigator was not involved in the search warrant. They of course aren't involved with the initial entry unless they happen to be part of the tactical team. I also agree that if an SOP says the investigator must be present, at least down the street, to ensure the right address is hit, then yes I more willing to have them charged with a crime. They just didn't make a typo, they ignored SOP, so yes now they've done something wrong. They purposely didn't follow the rules of their SOP.

[Sturn]

The last point, mostly, but also the idea that for a crime to be investigated, the police are the ones responsible for doing the investigation. I will say one thing, if it goes to trial, yeah, its probably relatively fair except for sentencing. Its getting to trial that's so hard, both for societal reasons and for the very simple reason that the police ultimately answer to the police. And that is somehow not immediately seen as an obvious contradiction.

I can agree with this bold part. My only fear is that when things are handed instead to a group that dislikes police, the police aren't going to get a fair shake in the matter. I see this in the media protrayed over and over. The answer is a completely neutral body that has no prejudice one way or the other for or against police. Who might that be?

So, Sturn, would submitting the 50th warrant for the house, improperly, count as deliberately indifferent? And should the person responsible for that warrant, and the judge, be charged with a deathable offense? What constitutes deliberately indifferent? How many would be? Just because there aren't laws for improperly creating a warrant doesn't mean we can't make them.

For the third time I think, I am not and have never defended the 50th search warrant incident.

[Sturn]

If someone dies, yes, I can be charged with some form of negligent homicide, as far as I know. And it isn't "lose my job" its "lose my ability to practice in that state (and probably any other)."

But, being charged with negligent homicide means you did something wrong. You just didn't step on an important piece of tubing, not notice it, and the guy died. You actually failed to do something that your job stated you should do and a person died. If your job SOP said check all of the tubing before leaving the room, you didn't, and the crushed tube led to the death. Then yes you could be charged under that scenario. You did something wrong. Unde similar scenarios the cops shouldn't and should be charged with a crime.

Similarly, if a cop gets fired he stands little chance of being rehired except possibly for a security job somewhere. Non-sworn.

[Sturn]

What if I hadn't contained my excitement, looked around, and noticed I was at the wrong address 10 years ago? Should I have been charged with Burglary and Assault, both of which require actual intention to commit in my State?

I would serioulsy like serious answers to this question after reading my story above. Luckily for me and the residents I noticed the screwup and corrected it before anything bad happened. There was nothing in our official SOP or non-official procedures (at the time, I've since changed them) that I neglected to do.

EDIT: Off to work. I think I've answered enough questions, sorry for so many posts. :) Think I can get OT for this? Public Relations? Public Education?

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

What if the screw up by the person writing the warrant was unintentional? I'm all for throwing a cop that purposely put the wrong address on a warrant into a jail then a homeless shelter when he gets out of prison. What I'm not for is the cop serving time in prison because he typed a "5" instead of a "2" on an address and didn't notice his screwup. Fired, sued, etc for the screw up, sure. Charged with intentional fraud, intentional inciting of violence? Are you kidding me? If I'm working at a company and I make a typo in an offer that costs my employer $5,000, I should be fired and possibly sued. Should I be thrown into prison for felony theft?

I just had to take my biannual training on affidavits so I'm in a good position to answer this. When I sign an affidavit on behalf of my bank, I am swearing under oath (and in the presence of a witness no less) that I have personal knowledge of the facts contained within the affidavit, and that they are all true. If I am lying, I can be charged with perjury and fraud.

[Fragile Bird]

This did not happen because of a police raid, but this story of a police officer who shot and killed a mentally handicapped double amputee in a wheelchair is the kind of story that people think about when they want police officers charged when serious events occur. http://article.wn.co...d_double_amput/

I think one of things that happens when people who are not involved in policing talk about charging police and police agree that police should be charged under the same circumstances that ordinary citizens would be charged is that police almost never turn out to be in equivalent situations, The circumstances police find themselves in are always unique and don't give rise to charges. For example, the story I mentioned at the start of the thread, about the person with the speech impediment being shot by 2 Florida highway patrol officers because he reached into his pocket to pull out the "I have a speech impediment" card. I could not find any reference to this case on the internet (it happened about 40 years ago), but I remember one of the shocking aspects to the story was the position taken by the police was that the killing was unfortunate but the police officers had no way of knowing he didn't have a gun. (The shooting of the handicapped man was just one of many stories that pop up when you search for police shoot man with speech impediment.)

If I, for example, was at the side of the highway talking to the stranger who just hit my car, and I pulled out a gun and shot him when he reached into his wallet to pull out his driver's license, I would be charged with murder. But police can kill that person with no consequences because hey, they are police officers and he could have been a ciminal who wanted to kill them. There just never seems to be a circumstance where police are not justified in killing someone, ever.

[polishgenius]

I think people are forgetting - or ignoring- the fact that the whole point of the police is to deal with people who don't follow the rules, and that the way they operate needs to take that into account. So yes, there have to be high standards of personal responsibility which, in several of the examples in the OP and obviously lots of other times, is obviously not always the case (and the blue wall of silence isn't helpful), but at the same time, some of the ideas being thrown around in this thread are ridiculous (clear the building if there's going to be any chance of a firefight? Seriously? Every person involved in a raid being personally responsible for getting the right place and person?) and would cripple their effectiveness. And you can understand why the blue wall exists - it's not just about protecting the bad 'uns.

I also rather dislike the implied attitude that because some cops are bastards, all cops are bastards.

I get charged with negligent homicide for injecting the wrong clear liquid into someone that kills them. (Which is easier to do that to confuse a gun and a taser)

At the same time, you're unlikely to be in a situation where you think, rightly or no, that not injecting the clear liquid right now might result in physical harm to you or a colleague. There's generally a lot more scope for you to check. You can't compare the situations.

Not that I think that the other situation is in any way okay, and you're probably not fit to be in that situation if you can't ensure that you might accidentally draw one or the other. That comes into the responsibility thing.

[Thlayli]

Let's say the police perform a "no-knock" entry on the wrong house, the homeowner grabs a gun and starts shooting cops, would the homeowner face criminal charges?

[Daario's*before*Snows]

Let's say the police perform a "no-knock" entry on the wrong house, the homeowner grabs a gun and starts shooting cops, would the homeowner face criminal charges?

Or what if the homeowner just pulls his gun out and aims it at police, as the police guns are being pointed at him. Are the police justified in shoiting him.

In other words, if the suspect just has a gun aimed at police, is that grounds to shoot him?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Thlayli,

Absolutely not. They are defending themselves from an armed incursion into their home by people with absolutely no right to be there. However, if an officer is shot I think the homeowner may be liable for negligence if they cannot show a good reason for opening fire on the officers.

[Balefont]

What if the screw up by the person writing the warrant was unintentional? I'm all for throwing a cop that purposely put the wrong address on a warrant into a jail then a homeless shelter when he gets out of prison. What I'm not for is the cop serving time in prison because he typed a "5" instead of a "2" on an address and didn't notice his screwup. Fired, sued, etc for the screw up, sure. Charged with intentional fraud, intentional inciting of violence? Are you kidding me? If I'm working at a company and I make a typo in an offer that costs my employer $5,000, I should be fired and possibly sued. Should I be thrown into prison for felony theft?

I can see your point, Sturn, and agree with it in theory. However, I can't help but wonder if there were harsher penalties in place for when these types of "screw-ups" happen, perhaps there would be greater vigilance to making sure these types of errors do not occur. Why isn't there, in your example, a review process that ensures even simple errors like typos are caught by a reviewer. My work is always double-reviewed; once by a reviewer and then the work is given an overall review by my Team Leader.

If we're trusting police as our hired guns and so-called "professional experts" for the type of work being performed, I thoroughly believe harsher penalties for errors would cut down on the number of mistakes. This in lieu of the "the brotherhood always has your back" mentality so rampant in police departments coupled with the "but how can we do our jobs if we're always second guessing our actions?" (the answer: more effective training) would have a huge impact on reducing the incidents of errors.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Strun,

Bale is dead on. When someone has a typo on a warrant people can die. If someone breaks down my door in the middle of the night (a burgular did that to my home when we weren't there last year) I'm going to assume burgular not that police are acting on a warrant with a typo.

Out of curiosity what happens when a federal or State SWAT team hits the wrong house and that homeowner calls the local police reporting a home invasion?

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Indiana has recently passed legislation giving homeowners the right to resist unlawful entry by the police. They are the only state with such legislation AFAIK. IMO the right to resist unlawful arrest/entry is part and parcel to the inalienable right of self defense.