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.
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.
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.
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.
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 ||an_hammer.gif' border=0>
This thread is specifically addressing that what the SWAT team did, once in place, was all justified
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 ||an_hammer.gif' border=0>
This thread is specifically addressing that what the SWAT team did, once in place, was all justified
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
Before I join in the discussion I have to ask is this supposed to be a joke thread?
Before I join in the discussion I have to ask is this supposed to be a joke thread?
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.
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.
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.
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.
read it, the guys is nuts
when he said siren was on for "half a second" I knew the guy was nuts
read it, the guys is nuts
when he said siren was on for "half a second" I knew the guy was nuts
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
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
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
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
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."
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."
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so. It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly. Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality. Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it. As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.