Messages

Forum Index : Website Promotions : Messages Page 2 of 6 «  1 2 3 4 5   »
Author: [Website Promotions] Topic: Looks like the Pima County SWAT team did everything by the book !!!!
rick3117 send a private message View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook |
rick3117
Participation Meter
All-Star
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14275
Location:
#26
Posted: 5/29/2011 5:43:25 PM
no
quote
StraightShooter send a private message View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook |
StraightShooter
Participation Meter
Hall of Fame
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 23227
Location: United States
#27
Posted: 5/29/2011 7:15:22 PM
QUOTE

Originally Posted by 5_for_Fighting:

LMAO
When I ask what the SWAT team did wrong, and they can't answer, it is THEM that got owned

I'll ask you
What did the SWAT team do wrong, and what do you base it on?

How would you have handled the raid BEFORE knowing that there was nothing illegal IN THIS HOUSE ( but illegal things were found in other houses involved in this investigation )

I'll check back later...
That will give you some time

For most decent people a group of unidentified cops breaking into a US Marine’s house, riddling his body with 60+ bullets, and then repeatedly changing their versions of what happened raises some red flags.

Obviously you, on the other hand, are perfectly happy to live in a society where the people that are paid to protect us break into our homes and if someone tries to defend their family from unknown intruders they are shot 60+ times and have their actions lied about.

To each his own.

 

quote
bakemcbride send a private message View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook | My Sportsbook: 5Dimes |
bakemcbride
Participation Meter
Legend
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 37966
Location: California
#28
Posted: 5/30/2011 12:23:02 AM

In watching this video, I noted several things:

 

Im surprised they are serving the warrant in the daylight if one of the things they are hoping to recover are narcotics, AND one of the possibilities they may encounter are firearms.

 

I would expect paper pushing forgery detectives to serve their fraudulant check warrants during day light hours.  For tactical reasons and officer safety, most detectives ask the signing judge for night time service.

 

There was "contagious fire" (where additional officers join in firing their weapons on an "unknown" target without personally verifying the danger themselves)  In many City Police Departments, this is against their respective shooting policies.  If my partner is firing down a dark alley, that does not give me the legal right to also shoot down that dark alley if I have not personally identified a threat. An officer, in theory, is responsible to answer for every round that is discharge from his duty weapon.

 

In Los Angeles, they teach the following acronyms to officers  when deciding to use deadly force.  This is the litmus test for EVERY officer involved shooting with LAPD.  IDOL (Immediate Defense of Life) and BALKS (Background, Age of target, Location of shooting, Knowledge of a crime, and Seriousness of the crime.)  If your decision to use deadly force is based on this criteria, then 9 times out of 10 your shooting will come back "In Policy".

 

The question came of as to why did SWAT need to be the ones to serve this warrant.  We as outsiders dont have all the information, but it could be as simple as they were warm bodies who were available that morning and hitting 4 houses at once takes up alot more personnel than many police departments can handle on a given deployment day.

quote
Stiln send a private message View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook |
Stiln
Participation Meter
Captain
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 6410
Location: Maryland
#29
Posted: 5/30/2011 1:16:36 PM
This swat team kills a United States Marine and all you can think about 5ff is praising the swat team for a job well done.. The sheer incompetence displayed by this swat team is horrifying.

Jesus christ,, I would love to hear the opinion of a NY or LA SWAT team on what happened here.

You've reached new levels of feeble-mindedness
quote
dl36 send a private message View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook | My Sportsbook: BetJamaica.com |
dl36
Participation Meter
Hall of Fame
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 23655
Location: United States
#30
Posted: 5/30/2011 5:52:27 PM
QUOTE Originally Posted by 14daroad:

But this has got to be one of the most ignorant, stupid, friggin maddening posts I have ever read on this site. 

I was hoping it was a joke.

The safety was still on, the Marine's weapon was not about to fire.

This bozo Sheriff should be run out of town on the rails...


I think that the choice in timing with memorial day and then choosing to address the killing of a man who honorably served his country in such manner is an issue...

But I wonder if the reactions of posters on this sit would be any different if it were a different day...

quote
5_for_Fighting send a private message View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook | My Sportsbook: 5Dimes |
5_for_Fighting
Participation Meter
Banned
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 6681
Location: Maine
#31
Posted: 5/30/2011 6:46:34 PM
QUOTE Originally Posted by djbrow:

I haven't read all the details yet so I can't really offer anything.

But let me ask this:

what it if was a Mexican looking American who pointed a gun at the police/SWAT team?

Would that change opinions?

You have to realize if I took the Vets side, the stalkers would be pimping the SWAT team

Most of the guys here can't separate the wheat from the chaff.

They are arguing about the merits or the warrant and the reason they needed a SWAT team, but, this thread is NOT ABOUT THAT

This thread is specifically addressing that what the SWAT team did, once in place, was all justified

quote
cd329 send a private message View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook |
cd329
Participation Meter
MVP
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 18271
Location: United States
#32
Posted: 5/30/2011 8:11:30 PM
This is quite funny mets who is nothing but a fat behind truck driver who hasnt performed a hard days work his entire life, wants to tell all of us about the SOP for swat teams

keep dreaming that you were a cop fat behind. Not only could your twinkie eating behind pass the fitness test, you couldnt pass the mental test.

So really quit telling us what the swat team did or didnt do right like you are some expert, cause its getting old now.


The merits of the warrant is the most important part of getting a warrant dumbass. Maybe these dumbasses should have done a little more research, especially on a 2 tour war vet.
On top of that they could have picked him up anywhere away from his house and not tipped off any of the other houses. Especially considering that the war vet had weapons and could react to the busting down of the door.  The swat team should be lucky they didnt lose some of their own.
These cops should be ashamed of what they did and i hope it haunts them for the rest of their lives.


quote
Stiln send a private message View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook |
Stiln
Participation Meter
Captain
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 6410
Location: Maryland
#33
Posted: 5/30/2011 8:41:12 PM
quote
bakemcbride send a private message View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook | My Sportsbook: 5Dimes |
bakemcbride
Participation Meter
Legend
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 37966
Location: California
#34
Posted: 5/30/2011 8:55:45 PM
QUOTE

Originally Posted by cd329:


The merits of the warrant is the most important part of getting a warrant dumbass. Maybe these dumbasses should have done a little more research, especially on a 2 tour war vet.
On top of that they could have picked him up anywhere away from his house and not tipped off any of the other houses. Especially considering that the war vet had weapons and could react to the busting down of the door.  The swat team should be lucky they didnt lose some of their own.
These cops should be ashamed of what they did and i hope it haunts them for the rest of their lives.


you are implying that this was an "arrest" warrant when you mention the officers could pick up the Marine away from his house.

The article that was linked specifically said it was a search warrant.  They are entirely different types of warrants.

 

There is an awful lot of speculation and inferrence on both sides of this argument, but neither side should jump to conclusions before a proper Officer Involved Shooting investigation reveals more facts.

It is awful that ANYONE has to die in the service of search and arrest warrants.

quote
wmi799
RSI Wagerline RSI Rating
send a private message View Space | Friends | Playbook |
wmi799
Participation Meter
All-Star
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 12727
Location: United States
#35
Posted: 5/30/2011 9:14:56 PM
QUOTE Originally Posted by 5_for_Fighting:

You have to realize if I took the Vets side, the stalkers would be pimping the SWAT team

So you flipped a coin to decide which side to take?

quote
cashin
RSI Wagerline RSI Rating
send a private message View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook |
cashin
Participation Meter
All-Star
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 12514
Location:
#36
Posted: 5/30/2011 9:33:57 PM
QUOTE Originally Posted by bakemcbride:

you are implying that this was an "arrest" warrant when you mention the officers could pick up the Marine away from his house.

The article that was linked specifically said it was a search warrant.  They are entirely different types of warrants.

Exactly & none of us know enough about the details now to make an accurate judgement. Always tragic when something like this happens & easy to rush to emotional judgements especially when it's a young vet who recently served, but should be the same with any citizen & obviously a thorough investigation is needed 

There is an awful lot of speculation and inferrence on both sides of this argument, but neither side should jump to conclusions before a proper Officer Involved Shooting investigation reveals more facts.

It is awful that ANYONE has to die in the service of search and arrest warrants.

quote
dl36 send a private message View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook | My Sportsbook: BetJamaica.com |
dl36
Participation Meter
Hall of Fame
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 23655
Location: United States
#37
Posted: 5/31/2011 4:15:08 AM
QUOTE Originally Posted by StraightShooter:

Before I join in the discussion I have to ask is this supposed to be a joke thread?



wait... so this isnt a joke?
quote
Stiln send a private message View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook |
Stiln
Participation Meter
Captain
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 6410
Location: Maryland
#38
Posted: 5/31/2011 11:12:05 PM

The Guerena Shooting: Initial Analysis




http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/archives/316833.php


quote
cd329 send a private message View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook |
cd329
Participation Meter
MVP
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 18271
Location: United States
#39
Posted: 5/31/2011 11:51:03 PM
QUOTE Originally Posted by bakemcbride:

you are implying that this was an "arrest" warrant when you mention the officers could pick up the Marine away from his house.

The article that was linked specifically said it was a search warrant.  They are entirely different types of warrants.

 

There is an awful lot of speculation and inferrence on both sides of this argument, but neither side should jump to conclusions before a proper Officer Involved Shooting investigation reveals more facts.

It is awful that ANYONE has to die in the service of search and arrest warrants.



They pick people up all the time on search warrants away from their house.  When they have reason to believe the person could have weapons, its a lot easier to just pick the person up with a cruiser while at a redlight, while hes at work or even out shopping. Then they can still do the search warrant and everybody is safe.  Happens all the time in ny state.
quote
cd329 send a private message View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook |
cd329
Participation Meter
MVP
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 18271
Location: United States
#40
Posted: 5/31/2011 11:57:43 PM
Bakemcbride, also remember you dont have to be home in order for the police to conduct a search warrant.
quote
5_for_Fighting send a private message View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook | My Sportsbook: 5Dimes |
5_for_Fighting
Participation Meter
Banned
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 6681
Location: Maine
#41
Posted: 6/1/2011 12:02:34 AM
QUOTE Originally Posted by bakemcbride:

In watching this video, I noted several things:

 

Im surprised they are serving the warrant in the daylight if one of the things they are hoping to recover are narcotics, AND one of the possibilities they may encounter are firearms.
You seem to have some law enforcement background, so I will give you a possibility to consider ( actually 2 )
1) Daylight: Possibly because of the area and because of home invasions...
Certainly home invasions are less frequent during the day, and in daylight anyone could CLEARLY SEE it was the police...not a gang of Ne'er Do WellsI
2) I can also understand the timing of this SWAT action because it is always great to have the person of interest home when serving a warrant...
They go in
Serve the warrant
Mirandize the Skell
then ask him where stuff is stashed
( if guy lawyers up, you search every hiding spot small enough to contain the smallest item mentioned in the warrant )

I would expect paper pushing forgery detectives to serve their fraudulent check warrants during day light hours.  For tactical reasons and officer safety, most detectives ask the signing judge for night time service. This wasn't thought to be a dangerous service with an armed perp.
If they thought he might be armed, I would have expected flash bangs and / or concussion grenades

 

There was "contagious fire" (where additional officers join in firing their weapons on an "unknown" target without personally verifying the danger themselves)  In many City Police Departments, this is against their respective shooting policies.  If my partner is firing down a dark alley, that does not give me the legal right to also shoot down that dark alley if I have not personally identified a threat. An officer, in theory, is responsible to answer for every round that is discharge from his duty weapon.
Agreed, but hard to tell who saw what
Would love to know total shots..
22 hits in total...
Doesn't sound like "spray and pray" to me

In Los Angeles, they teach the following acronyms to officers  when deciding to use deadly force.  This is the litmus test for EVERY officer involved shooting with LAPD.  IDOL (Immediate Defense of Life) and BALKS (Background, Age of target, Location of shooting, Knowledge of a crime, and Seriousness of the crime.)  If your decision to use deadly force is based on this criteria, then 9 times out of 10 your shooting will come back "In Policy".
BALKS is a good way to get killed
a 10 year old can pull a trigger just as easily as a 30 year old..
Also, if considering this action...
regardless of the background of the individual, if a man was holding a weapon aimed at SWAT...he is going to suffer lead poisoning

The question came of as to why did SWAT need to be the ones to serve this warrant.  We as outsiders dont have all the information, but it could be as simple as they were warm bodies who were available that morning and hitting 4 houses at once takes up alot more personnel than many police departments can handle on a given deployment day.

quote
drJ send a private message View Space | Friends | Playbook |
drJ
Participation Meter
Captain
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 6898
Location: Nevada
#42
Posted: 6/1/2011 12:15:20 AM
5 read all of stiln's link on the bottom of post 38.  then respond...hopefully with an admission you are wrong this time.

typed left handed from an underground bunker
quote
5_for_Fighting send a private message View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook | My Sportsbook: 5Dimes |
5_for_Fighting
Participation Meter
Banned
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 6681
Location: Maine
#43
Posted: 6/1/2011 12:17:53 AM
QUOTE

Originally Posted by drJ:

5 read all of stiln's link on the bottom of post 38.  then respond...hopefully with an admission you are wrong this time.

typed left handed from an underground bunker

read it, the guys is nuts
when he said siren was on for "half a second" I knew the guy was nuts

quote
5_for_Fighting send a private message View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook | My Sportsbook: 5Dimes |
5_for_Fighting
Participation Meter
Banned
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 6681
Location: Maine
#44
Posted: 6/1/2011 12:19:47 AM

oops  read that wrong
my bad

 

quote
5_for_Fighting send a private message View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook | My Sportsbook: 5Dimes |
5_for_Fighting
Participation Meter
Banned
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 6681
Location: Maine
#45
Posted: 6/1/2011 12:35:48 AM
QUOTE Originally Posted by drJ:

5 read all of stiln's link on the bottom of post 38.  then respond...hopefully with an admission you are wrong this time.

typed left handed from an underground bunker

THE VIDEO:

Seconds 0-8: The clip begins with the camera focusing on an officer in tactical gear and helmet in the front seat of a police vehicle. The field of view shifts around, finally settling, shakily, on a consistent view of the front of the home and of the approximately seven officers in tactical uniforms and gear in the front yard, driveway and near the front door. An officer with a bullet-resistant shield is consistently standing, more or less, in front of the door.
OK, so this confirms my point that the SWAT team had proper markings that anyone could see was police...
Not home invasion
Not gang bangers

5: The police vehicle siren begins.
Thought wife said no siren..OK She may not have heard it, but lights and sirens were initiated
Good procedure
Proper procedure

7: It stops for about a half second and begins again.

14: The siren ceases. The siren sounds very much like a car alarm, and is not very loud, even within the vehicle that is apparently broadcasting the sound. It has sounded, with a brief interruption, for only about nine seconds.
Nine seconds is plenty
If warrant is for drugs, you're not going to give the guy a long time to destroy evidence
Not very loud, I disagree...
Compare it to the knocks on the door, the officers command...
It was a typical siren, IMO

15: An officer can be heard saying “do it.”
Lead officer , I assume

17: An officer says “bang, bang, bang,” apparently over the radio. It’s not clear what he means or why he is saying this.
My guess is he is communicating with central command or into head sets telling the officers to approach the door a bang on the door..
might be code...??
I also can only guess

26: An officer holding a large, purpose-built pry bar, approaches the door and knocks lightly several times. He immediately retreats backward toward the garage.
Lightly, I disagree....
on the audio we can hear the knocking....
Try this at your house, stand 30-50 feet away from the front door and have someone knock, and keep knocking louder until YOU can hear it...record the action from inside your house ( back room, same level ) see how loud it sounds

33: An officer advances and apparently kicks the door open (officers standing in the way obscure the action, but the pry bar is apparently not used). I disagree, looks like guy with ram backs off and you see arm moving backwards after ram hits door That officer withdraws to the area of the garage. Officers immediately start moving around, but in no organized fashion. There is no stack, and no one seems to have any idea what to do. There is no organized attempt at a dynamic entry.
The entry was clumsy,
I am assuming the team had the layout of the house before entering, and would go in and cover all areas where they could be exposed to hostile fire
it is possible the doorway opens to a hallway where there is only a hall and walls on both sides..
If this is the case, you can't go in in a dynamic entry...
If there is an ambush, and you have to retreat or shoot, you will have SWAT members in the way

38: At this point, it appears that another officer actually enters the home to the right of the officer holding the shield. It is difficult to be sure, because various officers shift directly in and out of the view of the camera, which does not change. The shield-holding officer stands in the doorway, but does not enter. Another officer is standing to the left of the officer with the shield. He too does not enter, but only points his weapon into the home through the doorway. Again, officers are apparently speaking, but I cannot make out what they are saying.

40: Shots start, and are apparently a combination of semi-automatic and automatic fire. No muzzle flashes are visible and it is impossible to tell exactly who is firing. In addition, their specific weapons are not visible. Two officers immediately retreat out of the frame of the camera, to the right, in front of the garage. This leaves the officer who is apparently inside the house, the officer holding the shield who is blocking the doorway and the officer leaning over his left shoulder, at the left side of the doorway, leaning in, apparently firing. It appears that the officer with the shield is armed only with a handgun (normal procedure when carrying a shield) while the others are armed with long guns of various types. I can make out the distinct reports of at least three weapons.I agree with this assessment
I can make out 2 automatic weapons and one handgun
The handgun being the guy holding the shield

 

 

quote
5_for_Fighting send a private message View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook | My Sportsbook: 5Dimes |
5_for_Fighting
Participation Meter
Banned
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 6681
Location: Maine
#46
Posted: 6/1/2011 12:43:14 AM
QUOTE Originally Posted by 5_for_Fighting:

THE VIDEO:

Seconds 0-8: The clip begins with the camera focusing on an officer in tactical gear and helmet in the front seat of a police vehicle. The field of view shifts around, finally settling, shakily, on a consistent view of the front of the home and of the approximately seven officers in tactical uniforms and gear in the front yard, driveway and near the front door. An officer with a bullet-resistant shield is consistently standing, more or less, in front of the door.
OK, so this confirms my point that the SWAT team had proper markings that anyone could see was police...
Not home invasion
Not gang bangers

5: The police vehicle siren begins.
Thought wife said no siren..OK She may not have heard it, but lights and sirens were initiated
Good procedure
Proper procedure

7: It stops for about a half second and begins again.

14: The siren ceases. The siren sounds very much like a car alarm, and is not very loud, even within the vehicle that is apparently broadcasting the sound. It has sounded, with a brief interruption, for only about nine seconds.
Nine seconds is plenty
If warrant is for drugs, you're not going to give the guy a long time to destroy evidence
Not very loud, I disagree...
Compare it to the knocks on the door, the officers command...
It was a typical siren, IMO

15: An officer can be heard saying “do it.”
Lead officer , I assume

17: An officer says “bang, bang, bang,” apparently over the radio. It’s not clear what he means or why he is saying this.
My guess is he is communicating with central command or into head sets telling the officers to approach the door a bang on the door..
might be code...??
I also can only guess

26: An officer holding a large, purpose-built pry bar, approaches the door and knocks lightly several times. He immediately retreats backward toward the garage.
Lightly, I disagree....
on the audio we can hear the knocking....
Try this at your house, stand 30-50 feet away from the front door and have someone knock, and keep knocking louder until YOU can hear it...record the action from inside your house ( back room, same level ) see how loud it sounds

33: An officer advances and apparently kicks the door open (officers standing in the way obscure the action, but the pry bar is apparently not used). I disagree, looks like guy with ram backs off and you see arm moving backwards after ram hits door That officer withdraws to the area of the garage. Officers immediately start moving around, but in no organized fashion. There is no stack, and no one seems to have any idea what to do. There is no organized attempt at a dynamic entry.
The entry was clumsy,
I am assuming the team had the layout of the house before entering, and would go in and cover all areas where they could be exposed to hostile fire
it is possible the doorway opens to a hallway where there is only a hall and walls on both sides..
If this is the case, you can't go in in a dynamic entry...
If there is an ambush, and you have to retreat or shoot, you will have SWAT members in the way

38: At this point, it appears that another officer actually enters the home to the right of the officer holding the shield. It is difficult to be sure, because various officers shift directly in and out of the view of the camera, which does not change. The shield-holding officer stands in the doorway, but does not enter. Another officer is standing to the left of the officer with the shield. He too does not enter, but only points his weapon into the home through the doorway. Again, officers are apparently speaking, but I cannot make out what they are saying.

40: Shots start, and are apparently a combination of semi-automatic and automatic fire. No muzzle flashes are visible and it is impossible to tell exactly who is firing. In addition, their specific weapons are not visible. Two officers immediately retreat out of the frame of the camera, to the right, in front of the garage. This leaves the officer who is apparently inside the house, the officer holding the shield who is blocking the doorway and the officer leaning over his left shoulder, at the left side of the doorway, leaning in, apparently firing. It appears that the officer with the shield is armed only with a handgun (normal procedure when carrying a shield) while the others are armed with long guns of various types. I can make out the distinct reports of at least three weapons.I agree with this assessment
I can make out 2 automatic weapons and one handgun
The handgun being the guy holding the shield

 

 

OK, so there is my assessment

I still feel SWAT acted within the law

Remember, we :
ARE NOT debating whether SWAT was needed
ARE NOT debated whether the warrant should have been served in this manner

That is for another thread...
What I am saying is LOOKING AT THE VIDEO, SWAT:

used sirens ( and lights )
announced themselves
had uniforms clearly marked

Now a man was killed...the video doesn't show if this man raised a weapon on SWAT or not.
I assume he did...
Wife wasn't gunned down
son was gunned down
Only a man who reportedly pointed a weapon at the SWAT team

 

 

 

 also understand I am not saying that the man may not have been confused
Perhaps he took ambien before he went to sleep and was in a fog
Perhaps he thought it was a home invasion
Perhaps he was trying to protect himself, his wife and his kid...but
NONE OF THAT MATTERS
If you are SWAT, and a man points a weapon at you, you UNLOAD ON HIM

quote
5_for_Fighting send a private message View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook | My Sportsbook: 5Dimes |
5_for_Fighting
Participation Meter
Banned
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 6681
Location: Maine
#47
Posted: 6/1/2011 12:46:02 AM
* son wasn't gunned down
quote
5_for_Fighting send a private message View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook | My Sportsbook: 5Dimes |
5_for_Fighting
Participation Meter
Banned
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 6681
Location: Maine
#48
Posted: 6/1/2011 12:52:09 AM
QUOTE

Originally Posted by cd329:



They pick people up all the time on search warrants away from their house.  When they have reason to believe the person could have weapons, its a lot easier to just pick the person up with a cruiser while at a redlight, while hes at work or even out shopping. Then they can still do the search warrant and everybody is safe.  Happens all the time in ny state.

Pick them up for what?
again, this was a SEARCH WARRANT, not an ARREST WARRENT
The police would have no lawful reason to detain the guy at a red light
Terry v Ohio allows a "stop and frisk" but it has to be if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person "may be armed and presently dangerous."

quote
cd329 send a private message View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook |
cd329
Participation Meter
MVP
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 18271
Location: United States
#49
Posted: 6/1/2011 12:53:29 AM
well the sheriff in this video thinks this whole death was wrong and not necessary.
Hes right swat shouldnt be used for conducting simple drug search warrants. All they gotta do is serve these warrants when nobody is home and everybody stays safe.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyfMWiTN4us&feature=related
quote
5_for_Fighting send a private message View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook | My Sportsbook: 5Dimes |
5_for_Fighting
Participation Meter
Banned
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 6681
Location: Maine
#50
Posted: 6/1/2011 12:55:17 AM
QUOTE Originally Posted by cd329:

Bakemcbride, also remember you dont have to be home in order for the police to conduct a search warrant.

This is true
The advantage of having someone home is you mirandize them and they may give up some information

Catching them off guard like that many times leads to recovery of information and items listed on the warrant
quote
Forum Index : Website Promotions : Messages Page 2 of 6 «  1 2 3 4 5   »
You have entered the forum as a GUEST. 
You must login/register to post or reply.