Another Isolated Incident

Radley Balko | February 5, 2009

Police in Howard County, Maryland conducted a nighttime, no-knock raid on the home of Mike Hasenei, whom they apparently suspected of stealing items from two police cars burglarized last month. They found nothing, but they did shoot and kill Hasenei's Australian cattle dog. The police say the no-knock raid and tactical entry were necessary because Hasenei is a (legal) gun-owner.

Police spokeswoman Sherry Llewellyn confirmed the raid on Hasenei's house, noting that police had a search warrant signed by a judge...

Llewellyn confirmed the dog shooting, but said the dog charged police, forcing them to shoot it...

Llewellyn said police had reason to believe a gun was in the residence, which was why they did not knock...

Llewellyn added that when police have reason to believe there might be firearms in a residence, they take precautions to ensure the safety of the officers and anyone inside the house.

"This often includes the use of the tactical team, which is specially trained to deal with potentially dangerous situations," she said.

Sounds like they need more training.

Hasenei, 39, of the 6600 block of Deep Run Parkway, Elkridge, said he was sleeping shortly after 9 p.m. Jan. 15 when a police tactical team kicked in the door to his house.

He woke up and walked into his living room to find it swarming with officers, he said. When he asked what was going on, he was ordered to get on the ground, and when he asked again, he said, he was knocked to the ground and told he was under arrest.

He wasn't arrested.

So the police say they used a no-knock and a tactical team to secure the place quickly because they knew Hasenei was a gun owner. Yet Hasenei was able to get up from bed, walk out from his bedroom, and enter his living room before making his first contact with the tactical team. Which shows that all they really succeeded in doing was to provoke a potentially violent confrontation with a guy who at the moment looks to be innocent of any crime.

It's a good thing he didn't grab one of his guns on his way out of the bedroom.

Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!

Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.

SIV|2.5.09 @ 11:14AM|#

Llewellyn said police had reason to believe a gun was in the residence, which was why they did not knock...

Unless there is a decaying "Kucinich for President" sign in the yard there is a reason to believe a gun is in any residence in GA.
Kennesaw mandates it by law.

|2.5.09 @ 11:17AM|#

"...they take precautions to ensure the safety of the officers and anyone inside the house."

Except dogs.

Elemenope|2.5.09 @ 11:17AM|#

This is why qualified immunity is a very, very bad idea. The police should be liable for their error.

|2.5.09 @ 11:18AM|#

as a member of the people's republic of maryland, its nice to know that merely owning a firearm makes you a dangerous, cop killing criminal in the eyes of the state.

|2.5.09 @ 11:22AM|#

I fail to see how sending a squad of heavily armed and armored officers into a house without the permission of the owner does anything to ensure the safety of anyone inside the house.

robc|2.5.09 @ 11:25AM|#

I see they learned nothing from the Ryan Frederick case. When there is a gun in the house, no-knock raids INCREASE the chance of a police fatality. Middle of the day, polite knocking, handing over warrant raids work much better.

|2.5.09 @ 11:25AM|#

As if it's about the saftey of the people inside. They only care about themselves.

robc|2.5.09 @ 11:28AM|#

TrickyVic,

As if it's about the saftey of the people inside. They only care about themselves.

See my 11:25 post. How does this protect their safety? Ask Office Shivers?

|2.5.09 @ 11:28AM|#

He woke up and walked into his living room to find it swarming with officers, he said.

This blows my mind. They were milling about his living room without securing the house?!? Then they either are criminally stupid, or they didn't actually expect any resistance and just wanted to bust down a door and kick some ass, and used the gun ownership as an excuse. Maybe it's both.

Also, this is a prime example of the problems with gun registries. Since they knew he had a gun (legally!), they made the situation more dangerous.

Appalling.

h-dawg|2.5.09 @ 11:28AM|#

The underlying presumption is that anyone who has a gun will clearly be predisposed to shooting cops who show up at their door and identify themselves. Much safer to just break down the door unannounced and create chaos and uncertainty.

Boston|2.5.09 @ 11:29AM|#

I find it odd that anyone who would rob a police car would go to bed before 9.

|2.5.09 @ 11:30AM|#

The only people they are trying to keep the home owner safe from, is themselves. Do exactly what we want, when and how we want it, or we may have to kill you.

robc|2.5.09 @ 11:31AM|#

The underlying presumption is that anyone who has a gun will clearly be predisposed to shooting cops who show up at their door and identify themselves.

How often does this really happen? I know it happens, but as a percent of total warrants served?

It seems the percent is much high on no-knock warrants?

Heck, the percent is high on wrong house no-knock warrants?

Tym|2.5.09 @ 11:32AM|#

I fail to see how sending a squad of heavily armed and armored officers into a house without the permission of the owner does anything to ensure the safety of anyone inside the house.

True, except for a hostage situation, I cannot see this ever making sense.

South Park Deer Hunter|2.5.09 @ 11:32AM|#

Llewellyn confirmed the dog shooting, but said the dog charged police, forcing them to shoot it...

"He was comin' at me!"

|2.5.09 @ 11:33AM|#

I would love to see some hard data on this. What percentage of no-knock raids resulted in shots fired at the police, compared to normal raids?

"""See my 11:25 post. How does this protect their safety? Ask Office Shivers?""""

They shoot more people than they are shot, so it seem to work in there favor minus a few exception. Shivers being one. Besides how did that turn out for the guy that shot Shivers. Not very well and that's the message they wanted to send.

robc|2.5.09 @ 11:33AM|#

The only people they are trying to keep the home owner safe from, is themselves.

I agree, but how does this do that? It seems to do the exact opposite.

AFAICT from observation without access to data to due the math, the chance of a cop getting shot increases with the amount of surprise.

Regular warrant - low.
No knock - high.
Wrong house no-knock - very high.

I assume wrong house no-knocks are more surprised than right house no-knocks.

|2.5.09 @ 11:35AM|#

I think these 'isolated incidents' are a good thing because they get people to think twice about being potheads, anything that helps the cops to keep us all off drugs is an inherintly good thing, I'm all for it.

|2.5.09 @ 11:36AM|#

What ever happened to bull horns from the street?

"Mr. Hasanei, this is the police. Please come outside with your hands up. We have a warrant to search the premises."

Then if he doesn't they can take the appropriate tactical action. These surprises usually end up badly.

robc|2.5.09 @ 11:37AM|#

They shoot more people than they are shot, so it seem to work in there favor minus a few exception.

That makes no sense. It is percent of cops shot that matters for their safety, not how many extra they get to take down.

Besides how did that turn out for the guy that shot Shivers.

Poorly, but he got off better than Shivers did. You might even say that justice was served. I wouldnt.

The point is, what prevents a Shivers from occurring again. I assume that is what the cops want to prevent.

robc|2.5.09 @ 11:38AM|#

I know better than to respond to a sock-puppet, but as someone who has made it nearly 40 years without smoking pot (or nicotine, for that matter), these stories only make me want to take up the habit.

|2.5.09 @ 11:42AM|#

The funny thing about that whole "we knew he had a gun" thing is, it's a just a second smoke screen they can throw up.

If the person is not known to own any guns, the exact same thing happens. Though they're forced to use excuses like "well, we had a person who was suspected of multiple felonies and we have to protect ourselves and the people in the house" or "a person who engages in %CRIME_1% may have no issue engaging in %CRIME_2%, so we take no chances" etc.

I'll feel a lot better about this after the police do an internal investigation and exonerate the cops of any wrong doing.

"This blows my mind. They were milling about his living room without securing the house?!? Then they either are criminally stupid, or they didn't actually expect any resistance and just wanted to bust down a door and kick some ass, and used the gun ownership as an excuse. Maybe it's both."

It is both. Tactical take downs are really hard. Infantry as a general rule dont' do them because they are so hard. Infantry is very good at just blowing shit up and killing people. The only ones who do this kind of thing, where you want to take the target alive versus just kill everyone in the house well are special forces. Those are elite groups of very intelligent highly trianed and diciplined people. The average SWAT team guy wouldn't make it out of the first day of the Special Ops Q course.

I have done numerous domestic operations with the ordinary military. Politicians and the military are loath to put armed infantry on the streets of America and rightfully so. First, it looks terrible. Second, people don't carry weapons unless they plan to use them and having people running around the streets with automatic weapons is a really drastic action. Yet, despite all of those concerns the state and local and federal goverment daily sends marginally trained cops into people's homes unannounced armed with autmatic weapons. It is just disgracful.

I don't know how we stop it short of a mini revolution where 100s or perhaps thousands of cops are killed.

The problem with the Frederick's case is possible blowback. Cop's may fear more about being shot by a confused homeowner now. That's easy to solve, don't do anything to confuse them, but that doesn't fit in there use of force methods with respects to forcing the target to submit as quickly as possible. I could see, but doubt, shooting the family pet as an element of forcing the target to submit.

To them it's all about control. Knocking on the door and waiting for the owner to answer mean the owner is in control of when the contact and entry happens. They want to use methods that they control. It's a top down strategy and you suppose to be down.

What ever happened to bull horns from the street?

Dude, that's so 70's. The cops are all tactical now and shit. No more bad suit jackets, .38 revolvers, or captains that yell at you for using excessive force. No, it's all Glocks, M-4s, body armor, black uniforms, and captains that give you medals for killing people.

Scott|2.5.09 @ 11:44AM|#

"A copy of the warrant provided by Hasenei listed items to be seized, including a Sig Sauer Rifle and three ammunition magazines for the rifle, as well as a police gear bag, county police field procedures manual and guide, and more police-related items."

The cops probably thought that if they knocked, that would give the guy enough time to flush all the stolen goods down the toilet. Better to be safe than sorry ;-)

zoltan|2.5.09 @ 11:45AM|#

I'm with Boston, how come this evil, gun-toting criminal was asleep by 9 p.m.?

|2.5.09 @ 11:45AM|#

Oh. but there is "change you can believe in" on its way.

robc|2.5.09 @ 11:49AM|#

To them it's all about control. Knocking on the door and waiting for the owner to answer mean the owner is in control of when the contact and entry happens. They want to use methods that they control. It's a top down strategy and you suppose to be down.

Of course, but they should stop the lying safety bullshit then.

|2.5.09 @ 11:49AM|#

The article does not appear to indicate thay Hansenei actually owned any firearms or had any in the house. Based on my reading the cops suspected that there was a gun in the house because the SW listed the very rifle that some dumbass had stolen out of his cruiser.

|2.5.09 @ 11:50AM|#

"easy to solve, don't do anything to confuse them, but that doesn't fit in there use of force methods with respects to forcing the target to submit as quickly as possible."

But that is not what LE doctrine says. They should be using force that is reasonable and proportionate to the situation. There is a graduated scale of force where a cop is supposed to meet force with reasonable proporationate force. But when the suspect doesn't use force, the cop is supposed to use the minimum force necessary to effectuate the arrest.

I have taught LE use of force classes. The doctrine is actually quite sane and well written. The problem is that the cops throw it out the window when conducting these raids.

"""I don't know how we stop it short of a mini revolution where 100s or perhaps thousands of cops are killed."""

I don't know the answer but giving the government a reason to suspend heabas and justifying the them vs. us attitude probably won't do it.

""""That makes no sense. It is percent of cops shot that matters for their safety, not how many extra they get to take down.""""

It's not even a reality game. It's a perception game. In reality few cops are shot, more cops kill themselves than other people kill cops.

They use it both ways. They can use the fact that few cops are killed to justify their force. When cops get killed, it's because they didn't use enough.

""""The point is, what prevents a Shivers from occurring again. I assume that is what the cops want to prevent."""

Maybe, I would say that if they really want to prevent deaths like Shivers LEO would follow Radley's advice.
The only anwser they know is more force for greater control.

ktc2|2.5.09 @ 11:51AM|#

Expect to see A LOT MORE of this excuse "Well he's a legal gun owner so we had to expect trouble".

Then expect a push from LE and it's unions for gun bans in "high crime areas" followed by everywhere else.

They are coming to take your guns, and it's not the liberal "gun grabbers". It's the "law and order / the law is the law" types. They will disarm you for their protection.

|2.5.09 @ 11:52AM|#

John, if you are a governor or president and you want to use all resources available to help people in a natural disaster, why not put your guard or army forces on the street with holstered side arms? They can still defend themselves against some crazy SOB and the Humvee is probably nearby, too. Their hands will generally be free to help in whatever way they were sent there to help, rather than just marching down the street with their M-16s in both hands "keeping people safe" as their houses float down the river.

I'm no proponent of soldiers patrolling any American streets for securtity reasons, but I think if I were in charge and had the resources I would want to use them to help people when help was needed.

|2.5.09 @ 11:53AM|#

""""But that is not what LE doctrine says. They should be using force that is reasonable and proportionate to the situation."""

I'm not disagreeing. But obviously what LE doctine says, and what LEOs do are two different things in these situations. If you look at their actions, and listen to what they say. It's is all about control.

|2.5.09 @ 11:55AM|#

"""Expect to see A LOT MORE of this excuse "Well he's a legal gun owner so we had to expect trouble".""""

Yeah, and there was one raid in TN (I think) where the reason was the guy supported the Constitution. I think Radley reported on it a while ago.

|2.5.09 @ 11:56AM|#

"John, if you are a governor or president and you want to use all resources available to help people in a natural disaster, why not put your guard or army forces on the street with holstered side arms? They can still defend themselves against some crazy SOB and the Humvee is probably nearby, too. Their hands will generally be free to help in whatever way they were sent there to help, rather than just marching down the street with their M-16s in both hands "keeping people safe" as their houses float down the river."

That is a very good and sane point. They have done a lot of stupid things out of fear of armed soldiers. During Hurrican Andrew they put them out on the streets with M 16s but without ammunition. The local criminal population quickly figured out the soldiers didn't have amo and did armed robberies of several soldiers stealing their M16s.

The side arms are good idea except that a lot of units don't have enough 9mms. My idea has always been to have organic units of MPs who are armed with batons, mace, and 9mms, deployed with soldiers doing relief work. That way if there is any issue, a trained, armed MP can deal with it until the civilian cops get there. But that idea has never gained any traction in the operations I have been on.

|2.5.09 @ 11:57AM|#

From what I have seen when talking to cops, they are to a certain extent paranoid. They think everyone who isn't a cop could actually be a crazy killer even if they don't look like it.

Try talking to a cop some time (I know, it's painful) and casually mention going to the range or applying for a concealed carry permit. Watch the way they look at you change. This of course works better talking to cops from places with lower gun ownership/lots of gun control.

Thom|2.5.09 @ 11:58AM|#

They justify all this by citing officer safety. I think we all know that they just want to dress up in their military costumes and play soldier. The reason they always shoot the dog is because it's a reason to shoot something, and these guys are hungry for action. If they thought they could get away with it they'd shoot the people in the house too.

Barry|2.5.09 @ 12:02PM|#

Defend that 2nd Amendment!

Http://ABCDunlimited.com/ideas/arms.html

Ska|2.5.09 @ 12:04PM|#

Oh. but there is "change you can believe in" on its way.

I hope this is a spoof of you man, because I'm pretty sure the PUSA has absolutely nothing to do with this.

I want to know what made them suspect this guy, and what gave enough PC for the warrant. Pretty ballsy to rip off weapons and gear from the police, whoever did it. Just sounds like an interesting story.

|2.5.09 @ 12:05PM|#

Ironically EPI, not that many cops are killed on duty when you consider the number of cops there actually are in the country. There hasn't been an FBI or DEA agent killed in years. The most dangerous line of work for a cop is Border Patrol. A lot of those guys are out alone in the middle of nowhere dealing with really nasty people. Your typical cop on the beat just isn't in that much danger. Yet, you are right, they are paranoid as hell. I blame Hollywood.

|2.5.09 @ 12:10PM|#

Yet, you are right, they are paranoid as hell. I blame Hollywood.

I blame the fact that because of a few extremely rare instances where things like simple traffic stops have gotten an officer shot, they now treat every encounter as potentially deadly, even though the chance of most being so is incredibly low.

If you pull over some dude in a suit driving a Mercedes, you do NOT have to approach the car with your hand on your gun. Sorry. By doing so you indicate that you consider all regular people to be potential threats. It's a horrible way to interact with the public.

|2.5.09 @ 12:11PM|#

How about the LE that had the materials stolen? Did they have to pay for the apparently unsecured weaponry? While the vehicle may have been locked when the LE was in Dunkin' their Donuts it obviously was a high profile target, for thieves. Damn, don't banks get robbed because that's where the money is?

Hormonal Redhead|2.5.09 @ 12:34PM|#

OK, the cops knew he owned a gun, because he registered it, so that necessitated a no-knock warrant? I'm guessing if he had never owned a gun, the police wouldn't know if he had a gun or not, and that would necessitate a no-knock warrant because he "might" have an unregistered gun. By that logic the only way the police might use an old-fashioned knock and announce warrant is if people who DIDN'T own guns at all registered themselves with the police.

Fucking idiots. Anyone who goes through all the trouble to legally register a gun probably won't shoot a cop who knocks on the door and announces himself. Anyone who'd knowingly shoot a cop probably won't bother to register a gun.

[Glad I don't live in Maryland. I've got a friend who's a retired deputy sheriff, and he's actually *encouraged* me to get my concealed carry permit. Not a cop who worried about law-abiding citizens owning guns. Wonder if the LEO mindset is different here in TX, or if it's changed since my friend retired? Or maybe he's just a rare exception.]

And don't even get me started about the poor dog.

Other Matt|2.5.09 @ 12:55PM|#

as a member of the people's republic of maryland, its nice to know that merely owning a firearm makes you a dangerous, cop killing criminal in the eyes of the state.

As another member of the People's Republic...this is news to you?

OK, the cops knew he owned a gun, because he registered it, so that necessitated a no-knock warrant?

Negative. No registration in Merry Land. How they "knew" this is an interesting question, probably because in violation of Federal law they maintain purchase records. Under MD Law, they keep purchase records of "regulated firearms" forever. However, since I'm on record as having purchased perhaps 50 or so handguns, but they don't keep sales records, I could have anywhere from 50 to zero in the house.

Other Matt|2.5.09 @ 12:58PM|#

but they don't keep sales records

Clarification: They don't have "registration" where you have to provide evidence of a sale, so they have no record of any that I have subsequently sold or given away. Therefore, they really don't know a damn thing about how many firearms, if any, I have in the house. They only know I've purchased and I'm a "designated collector" under MD law.

|2.5.09 @ 12:59PM|#

Try talking to a cop some time (I know, it's painful) and casually mention going to the range or applying for a concealed carry permit.

Here in Texas, I've gotten approving nods from cops when I told them/presented my concealed carry permit. They seem to realize it means (a) I don't have a criminal record and possibly (b) that I am in a self-identified cohort that is the least likely to commit crimes.

|2.5.09 @ 1:01PM|#

Yet, you are right, they are paranoid as hell. I blame Hollywood.

I blame low IQs.

SIV|2.5.09 @ 1:09PM|#

Reading the linked article it is not clear that the no-knock raid was conducted because Mr Haseni was a legal gunowner(no mention)rather that the property to be seized was a stolen police gun (essentially stated). There maybe something not-linked or that I missed.

Hormonal Redhead|2.5.09 @ 1:13PM|#

"Negative. No registration in Merry Land. How they "knew" this is an interesting question, probably because in violation of Federal law they maintain purchase records."

Ah. Thanks for the clarification, Other Matt. When I read the article, I assumed that "(legal) gun owner" meant there was a registration requirement in MD. That's what I get for assuming. :-)

Other Matt|2.5.09 @ 1:23PM|#

Ah. Thanks for the clarification, Other Matt. When I read the article, I assumed that "(legal) gun owner" meant there was a registration requirement in MD. That's what I get for assuming. :-)

When you read the article, it almost sounds like they knew there were guns there because they suspected him of stealing guns. Strange logic.

Hormonal Redhead|2.5.09 @ 1:24PM|#

Actually, SIV does have a point, Radley. (I just read the linked article.) I suppose the cops might have had reason to believe a gun was in the house if they were looking for stolen police property that included weapons, even if Hasenei didn't own a gun at all.

Doesn't change my opinion of no-knock warrants, though.

zoltan|2.5.09 @ 1:28PM|#

There should be some set-ups--give the police a reason to come to your house (oh I don't know, say you support the Constitution and the Fourth Amendment especially, or something) and set up video cameras everywhere. Have especially well-trained but incredibly terrifying-looking dogs that just sit there when the police conduct their no-knock raid. When they do the inevitable then you've got your evidence to take them to court. Or even better, be dogsitting a police dog and when they shoot their own make them pay.

|2.5.09 @ 1:33PM|#

Llewellyn said police had reason to believe a gun was in the residence, which was why they did not knock....They found nothing, but they did shoot and kill Hasenei's Australian cattle dog.

And obviously they shot the dog because he could have been the one carrying.

Hormonal Redhead|2.5.09 @ 1:38PM|#

Other Matt: "When you read the article, it almost sounds like they knew there were guns there because they suspected him of stealing guns. Strange logic."

Yes and no. I can see how they might suspect the guns were in the house if they suspected he had stolen them, and probably the idea of being shot with their own weapons would weird them out and make them want to not take any chances. Although Hasenei wasn't the one listed on the warrant (his stepson, who hadn't lived there for years but hadn't changed the address on his ID card, was), according to the linked article. A little time talking to neighbors would probably have told the police that the stepson no longer lived there, and a search of utility records (or, hell, Intelius) would probably have given them a valid address for him. Sounds to me like they let themselves get a little careless because it was a theft of police property.

|2.5.09 @ 1:38PM|#

Shooting the dog(s) in these situations is not only about controlling the premises, it's also about a chance to get in some punishment toward the suspect in a very direct way and do so legally.

These days in these situations, the police tend to assume the suspect is guilty of crime X, otherwise they wouldn't be there. Since he is likely guilty, he is now a criminal lowlife. A lowlife that the system is typically too easy on in the eyes of most police. But even though he is a low-life, sub-human criminal, he probably loves his dogs. Police know that a suspect seeing his pet(s) killed before his eyes or in his presence will really hurt the susupect emotionally. So they kill the dog(s), as a form of punishment they can mete out personally and get the support of their supervisors afterwards. That's why this has become so routine.

It's not that police hate the dogs, it's that they hate the owners and want to hurt them in any way possible.

BT6|2.5.09 @ 1:47PM|#

"R C Dean | February 5, 2009, 1:01pm | # Yet, you are right, they are paranoid as hell. I blame Hollywood.

I blame low IQs."

Why are you being redundant?

Now, if you will excuse me, the FBI and Interpol threats are done and my DVD of "The Professional" is starting . . .

Egosumabbas|2.5.09 @ 2:28PM|#

Good thing I own cats instead of dogs... Though it wouldn't surprise me if they changed their policies to shoot anything with fur, four legs, and a tail.

|2.5.09 @ 3:00PM|#

I hope this is a spoof of you man, because I'm pretty sure the PUSA has absolutely nothing to do with this.

Not directly, but he does run a great big old FBI and Justice Department that is actually charged with investigating and if need be prosecuting civil rights violations. If he gave a shit, he could definitely do something about it, without even having to go to the trouble of pushing for legislation to define and enforce the Bill of Rights as it applies to the issuance and execution of search warrants.

If he gave a shit.

mike|2.5.09 @ 3:00PM|#

when is this kinda shit gonna end? What, a cop in full gear cant take a dog bite if it comes to that? Then again they seem to want to tase people rather then risk getting a bruise. If only they were patco and could all go out on strike...

|2.5.09 @ 3:03PM|#

Next time the local patrol officers telemarket my house to sell me tickets to their charity event, I'm dropping an "I don't support dog killers" on them.

But seriously... Where is the Humane Society and the SPCA in all this? Even PETA doesn't seem interested. I'd give money to PETA if they took this up as a prominent issue.

LarryA|2.5.09 @ 3:33PM|#

Try talking to a cop some time (I know, it's painful) and casually mention going to the range or applying for a concealed carry permit. Watch the way they look at you change.

I have a Texas CHL, and I teach the CHL class. Most street officers I know (in small-town Texas) fully support concealed carry. A moderate portion of our instructors are current or former LEOs. Note also that the National Rifle Association and Texas State Rifle Association have more LEOs among their respective directors than any other non-law-enforcement type organization.

The most common CHL complaint I hear from officers is, "I wish I could convince my spouse to get one."

Big-city police chiefs, however, are a different breed.

This of course works better talking to cops from places with lower gun ownership/lots of gun control.

True. Back in 1995-1996 when the Texas law went into effect a lot of officers were a lot more skittish about it.

Paul|2.5.09 @ 3:41PM|#

They seem to realize it means (a) I don't have a criminal record and possibly (b) that I am in a self-identified cohort that is the least likely to commit crimes.

Lemme tell you 'bout Seattle, sometime.

Paul|2.5.09 @ 3:44PM|#

The most common CHL complaint I hear from officers is, "I wish I could convince my spouse to get one."

Big-city police chiefs, however, are a different breed.

LarryA

Yes, yes they are a different breed. With highly polished brass knobs on, a different breed.

Paul|2.5.09 @ 3:50PM|#

Kerlikowske's record speaks for itself. A police chief who believes that 1: Citizens shouldn't own firearms an 2: If citizens are in the act of being brutalized by criminals while in front of officers, the police are not to intervene to avoid 'escalating' the situation. Too bad people could die with that policy. Oh shit, my bad, someone did die from that policy.

During the incident, Police Chief Gil Kerlikowske ordered the police at the scene not to intervene, instead maintaining a perimeter around the violence, supposedly because he feared escalation. Shortly after the incident, the Seattle police force voted a resolution of "no confidence" in Chief Kerlikowske when officers complained of being "held back too long". The City of Seattle acknowledged police strategy presented a public safety threat, and settled with Kime's family for just under $2,000,000. Seattle created a task force to investigate the cause of the Mardi Gras riots. Initially task force meetings were closed to the public, but protest forced the city to open them.

|2.5.09 @ 5:04PM|#

"""What ever happened to bull horns from the street?"""

No kidding, if the CPD used a bullhorn, Det. Shivers would still be alive. But a bullhorn doesn't give the rush that kicking down doors with weapons drawn does. Some thrive off that high.

kablammo|2.5.09 @ 8:53PM|#

Makes me want to get one of them fancy M18 doormats with the words "Front Towards Enemy".

|2.6.09 @ 1:58AM|#

Llewellyn confirmed the dog shooting, but said the dog charged police, forcing them to shoot it...

The police don't seem to be able to distinguish between a "charge" and a (more likely) "greeting".

|2.6.09 @ 2:37PM|#

This has gotten so absurd that I am just waiting to hear cops killed an attack dog that turns out to be a chihuahua.

"I had to shoot - he was biting my ankle."

mark|2.6.09 @ 4:09PM|#

I think we all know that they just want to dress up in their military costumes and play soldier. The reason they always shoot the dog is because it's a reason to shoot something, and these guys are hungry for action. - Thom

Shooting the dog(s) in these situations is not only about controlling the premises, it's also about a chance to get in some punishment toward the suspect in a very direct way and do so legally. - Randy Bean

I think these quotes go a little far, but dammit there is something fucked up when a police officer shoots a dog. They could kick the dog, intimidate it, tase it, take the bite and keep moving, or how about reaching for the ol' nightstick? Just holding your ground usually works on most dogs, vicious or not. But no, you have to unload a round! Why, Austin Police Department, did you have to shoot that perfectly harmless dog, who was not charging but in fact submitting after you pepper-sprayed it? (I'm referring to a 2005 incident.) I hope you felt remorse or suffer consequences, but I know you didn't and didn't.

|2.6.09 @ 7:32PM|#

I grew up in Howard County. Used to be some good officers there but it seems that they have redtired.
I find it very disturbing that our homeowner did not greet them with some .30 cal. rifle fire on their way in the door. Barring that, he has the right to go after the officers and use deadly force against them as they did his dog. I would not find him guilty of this retribution if I were on his jury.
Only when the thugs fear civilian repurcussion more than their jobs will this stop. Additionally, I am an ex police officer yet I fear the police now more than any criminal I may come in contact with.

|2.7.09 @ 10:28PM|#

"when police have reason to believe there might be firearms in a residence, they take precautions to ensure the safety of the officers and anyone inside the house."

I am a legal gun owner and if woke up in the middle of the night by my door crashing down without the police identifying themselves, I am likely to get shot as I will have a gun in my hand when I get downstairs. How exactly is that taking safety precautions? Some police should lose their jobs.

|2.7.09 @ 10:34PM|#

Read JW comments ....LMAO

|2.7.09 @ 10:53PM|#

I heard you stole something from me so I broke down your door in the middle of the night, ransacked your house, shot your dog , didn't find anything and left.....sorry.

How is this taking safety precautions, lucky they didn't get shot.

|2.12.09 @ 11:37AM|#

Hitler would have been proud of these thugs. Certainly Hasenei believes the 2nd Amendment allows law-abiding citizens to defend themselves against tyranny??

|2.14.09 @ 10:15PM|#

every cop on that raid needs to do the right thing. Eat their gun.

|2.14.09 @ 10:27PM|#

Oh yea, and throw the judge who signed the warrant into general population for a few hours so next time he uses his head before he signs every sheet of paper that a-hole cops shove under his nose. Ignorant dick

Reason Magazine

Get Reason E-mail Updates!

Site comments/questions:

Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:

Editorial & Production Offices:

advertisements