Don't Wanna Get Myself Shot Down By Some Trigger-Happy Policeman

As police prepared to arrest a man and search his home in Fairfax County, Virginia, Tuesday night, one officer accidentally shot the alleged perp. The victim was unarmed.

What terrible crime was he accused of, what act so hazardous that the authorities had to send a combat-ready SWAT team to his house?

Seems he was a suspected bookie.

Radley Balko comments:

Fairfax County conducts all of its search warrants with SWAT teams. Regardless of what the warrant is for, and whether there's any reason at all to think the suspect might be dangerous….

The phrase "police state" is often overused. It's almost a cliche. But if the Fairfax police department is serving every warrant with cops decked out in battle gear, I'm hard pressed to come up with a more appropriate term.

And you'd be hard-pressed to argue against the fact that Fairfax's all-SWAT-all-the-time police is the reason Culosi is dead. Had a couple of detectives served the search warrant, in the presence of a couple of troopers, he'd still be alive.

Comments

[John]

How often are police actually shot in this country executing a search warrent? I bet it isn't that much if at all. It is one thing if you are going into a house after someone who is wanted for murder and has nothing to loose by killing a cop and trying to get away. It is completely another thing if you are going in after an ordinary bookie or drug dealer. Not many drug dealers want to go down for killing a cop. Minimum manditories are one thing, death or life without paroles is something entirely different. With that in mind, I fail to see the justification for kicking in doors guns drawn absent extordinary circumstances.

[Jennifer]

Absolutely nothing will happen to the cop who killed him.

Well, maybe he'll get a week's suspension with pay, and call it a punishment rather than a paid vacation.

[Evan]

As Balko notes, it was a document search warrant. Radley has a nice collection of stories about SWAT raids gone wrong. No-knock raids are the best, too. Busting down someone's door in the middle of the night and shooting them when they attempt to defend themselves or their family from a "burglar"? Priceless!

[shecky]

Fairfax County conducts all of its search warrants with SWAT teams.

Heh. I remember when the movie Brazil used to seem funny.

[Matt]

Jennifer-
Not so sure of that. While VA tends to have enlightened gun ownership/carr laws, they also judge harshly the misue thereof. It's not a bad thing, in my opinion, judging the use not the potential. The guy was, according to the article which I read hardcopy (due to a coworker being a HS friend of the guy who was shot and having a copy), at least negligent in his handling of his firearm.

Bad timing for those of us who believe that firearms are not the spawn of the devil is that in the same paper, a representative was claiming he didn't know why his .380 went off while sitting at his desk at the VA State house.

The use of SWAT teams to serve warrants is kind of ridiculous to me personally, btw, and is a completely different discussion.

I'll have to go to the NRA News feed, should be interesting to hear commentary on this one.

[Evan]

Nothing ever really happens to these scumbags. I read another one of Radley's stories in which, during a raid, the officers started the house on fire by accident. As the fire raged, the owner's year-old puppy comes running out of the house, but the officers forced it back inside...where it burned to death while the owners listened to its poor yelps of dying pain. Nothing happened to the officers. And even if the owners were to sue in civil court, nothing would be awarded, because the monetary value that the courts place on pets is zero.

[David]

Well, maybe he'll get a week's suspension with pay, and call it a punishment rather than a paid vacation.

And we'll be reminded that cops are human and make mistakes, which is true. Oddly, we're never reminded of this when they claim they more authority.

[David]

claim they need more authority.

[Evan]

"And we'll be reminded that cops are human and make mistakes, which is true."

Cops ARE human, and cops DO make mistakes---which is why it's a bad idea for these quite HUMAN cops to be made to serve a DOCUMENT SEARCH WARRANT with a SWAT TEAM which has its loaded guns trained on the guy's CHEST. The issue is not that someone made a mistake. The issue is whether the policy that allowed that mistake to take someone's life is a good policy.

[methodman]

How often are police actually shot in this country executing a search warrent?

Not often enough, considering the shit they pull.

The server just ate my post with five linked examples, and the last time I waited for the server, my post never came back.

[amazingdrx]

(The much reviled by the libertarian community) John Kerry talking on the Alito appointment, recently recited an anecdote about a teenage suspect fleeing with a stolen purse shot in the back of the head while climbing a fence.

The subsequent legal challenge to the shooting claimed that the force used did not match the threat posed by the suspect. That challenge was then upheld by the court considering this case.

Judge Alito overturned that lower court ruling against the police shooting, claiming that any amount of force used by the state in enforcing it's laws was constitutionally justifiable.

Get your bush bunker built now liberatians!! we civil libertarians are already IN ours as we type!!

[Russ 200]

That's cuz they got the acute schizophrenia disease.

[Jennifer]

While VA tends to have enlightened gun ownership/carr laws, they also judge harshly the misue thereof.

For civilians, maybe, but not cops. Cops are held to a lower standard than ordinary citizens. I've lost count of the number of times I've seen stories like "Cop Tasers man twelve times, turns out to be totally unnecessary" and absolutely NOTHING happens to the cop in question.

Meanwhile, if you're feeling sadistic and suicidal, here's a fun experiment: go Taser somebody for no reason yourself and see what happens to you. Or shoot and kill an unarmed man and say "Gee, I thought his wallet was a gun."

[Jennifer]

You know, when I was a teacher, I was held to a much higher standard of behavior than my students, even the ones who were legal adults, because I was the one with Authority. Thus, if a student told me to go fuck myself he'd get a few day's detention, whereas if I told a student to go fuck himself I could lose my job. And I think that's exactly how it should be. And yet--I never had anything even CLOSE to life-and-death powers over my students.

If I was held to such high standards when the most power I had was the ability to make a kid repeat a grade, why shouldn't cops be held to such high standards when they have the power to take away a man's freedom or even his life?

[happyjuggler0]

The use of SWAT to deliver warrants all the time is absurd.

What is really sad though is that it is illegal to be a bookie in the first place, the reason this guy got shot.

[David]

The issue is whether the policy that allowed that mistake to take someone's life is a good policy.

Evan,

You missed my point. This type of policy exists because police claimed that they need such measures to "keep officers safe" while fighting the "war on crime". They always claim that such expanded powers would never be abused or put "civilians" at risk.

[thoreau]

Although police and firearms authorities were divided yesterday on whether SWAT teams are needed for most search warrants, as is Fairfax's practice, they agreed on another point: Officers carrying guns should not aim directly at anyone or have their fingers on the trigger until they are absolutely ready to fire.

"In my opinion, there are no accidental discharges," said John Gnagey, executive director of the National Tactical Officers Association. Gnagey was not familiar with the Fairfax case but said that in general, "Most of what we see in law enforcement are negligent discharges, fingers being on the trigger when they shouldn't be."

OK, let's review the first two basic firearm safety rules:

1) Always point the firearm in a safe direction.

2) Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on the target.

Apparently I'm more knowledgeable about firearm safety than the SWAT guy. And I'm hardly what you'd call experienced.

[thoreau]

To be clear, my reproach was directed at the guy who shot the suspect, not at the person issuing the statement.

[Mike]

If you guys want to email the chief of police for Fairfax County, here's his email, I'm sure he'd love to hear from you:

[e-mail]

And here is the email to the head of internal affairs:

[e-mail]

More contacts can be found here

[The Real Bill]

I wouldn't have a problem with the SWAT teams if the team members were subject to the EXACT same laws as "civilians". The team member s/b prosecuted for negligent homicide at a minimum.

Why the hell is it illegal to be a bookie?

[Mike]

Why the hell is it illegal to be a bookie?

Why the hell is it illegal to sell drugs?

[Jennifer]

Why the hell is it illegal to be a bookie?

Because gambling is evil and immoral unless it is done via a government lottery or on an Indian reservation.

[Shawn Smith]

According to the article, there was a small amount of cocaine and $38,000.00 found in the residence. <sarcasm>So, he was either an addict or drug dealer, and this shooting will probably be ruled justifiable.</sarcasm>

[Matt]

Apparently I'm more knowledgeable about firearm safety than the SWAT guy. And I'm hardly what you'd call experienced.

You and I both. As I read the first couple paragraphs, I started off on a tear about just that. "That" being don't point it until you are ready to shoot, and keep the trigger off. I even said the bit about negligent discharges.

Cops ARE human, and cops DO make mistakes

This, for those who are firearm literate, is an unforgivable mistake. The specific weapon was an HK .45, presumably a USB full size or compact. Assuming the guy didn't have it modified to a strict single action mode, which I would be shocked if a police organization allowed for a duty firearm just because of this kind of thing, he either: 1) Had the hammer back, safety off, and finger on the trigger, while pointed center of mass on a NON THREATENING target, or 2) Pulled the hammer through the whole double action cycle, which is about near impossible to do accidentally. In case 1, it's outright boneheaded negligence, in case 2, it's just plain murder.

I'm an average joe kind of guy, not a "highly trained police officer", and I know this. Worse yet, my 14 year old son and my 13 year old daughter know this is not how to handle a firearm. The "highly trained police officer" thing works against him, as SWAT officers are supposedly better trained in firearms usage.

[Number 6]

Thoreau-Number 2 doesn't work in combat/police shooting, at least for shooting pistols in the double-action mode. There, the technique is to apply pressure to the trigger as you bring the sites to the target, so that the hammer is part of the way back when your sight picture lines up.

Not that that excuses what the police did in any way, shape, or form.

This has happened so many times, though, that I don't even feel outrage anymore. Just tired resignation.

[Matt]

outright boneheaded negligence
Make that "outright boneheaded CRIMINAL negligence"...sorry for the drop, was talking to a guy in the middle of typing it who used to be a VA SWAT guy, but a different area.

[Number 6]

Clarification- The type of shooting I am talking about is used only in very specific instances, namely, when you are at the range or damn sure you're about to kill someone.

[Mike]

If three cops had to stand trial for beating the shit out of Rodney King, this guy should get the chair.

[thoreau]

Number 6-

Would the police at least follow the rule that the finger shouldn't be anywhere near the trigger until they have a reason to point it at somebody?

[thoreau]

And I see that you answered my question while I typed my post.

[mediageek]

"Why the hell is it illegal to sell drugs?"

Why the hell is it illegal to own a sound suppressor?

Jennifer is completely correct. If a private citizen with a concealed carry permit fucked up like this, he'd be thrown in the clink for a very long time.

Cops do this stuff on such a continual basis that, quite frankly, I'm not even surprised that it happens any more. They are never punished anywhere nearly as harshly.

Yet, statistically speaking, you're more likely to be inadvertently gunned down by a cop than by a citizen with a concealed carry permit.

Does that seem right to you?

[ChicagoTom]

This officer was a 17 year vet.

He was a "highly trained" member of the swat team.

And the gun he was shot with was "a larger weapon that authorities said would not have a trigger that could be easily tripped."

Something stinks in this story. I wonder if the cop in question had any other kind of business with Culosi Jr. or if Culosi had something on him.

This doesn't seem like a mere negligance or accidental shooting based on what I read. My gut tells me there were some sinister motives involved on the part of the shooting officer

[Troy]

I wonder how William Bennett would come down on this issue? Would Bill have an issue if they shot his bookie?

[Matt]

There, the technique is to apply pressure to the trigger as you bring the sites to the target, so that the hammer is part of the way back when your sight picture lines up.

I disagree entirely with this. One should NOT apply pressure to the trigger until such time as they are on target. Trusting the length of pull and trigger weight is way too risky when adrenaline was involved. The only time this technique is acceptable is when responding to an active threat which is about to put a cap in you, and you don't have time to cover down then apply trigger pressure.

Which is the problem, he was presented with a NON THREATENING target, the guy was complying with direction and made no moves for anything, according to the article. The officer had no business whatsoever covering the suspect with the muzzle. Drawn at a low guard would have been completely acceptable, but this is someone who got way too far ahead of themselves, given the story relayed in the article. I have to say it that way as this is, recall, the WA Post, and is already on record saying handguns should be banned, as it obviously ::ahem:: works for drugs and works so well in DC.

[Matt]

Clarification- The type of shooting I am talking about is used only in very specific instances, namely, when you are at the range or damn sure you're about to kill someone.

Ditto on T's comment, while I was typing.

[Matt]

This doesn't seem like a mere negligance or accidental shooting based on what I read. My gut tells me there were some sinister motives involved on the part of the shooting officer

Unfortunately, I think it has more to do with guys getting too pumped up and treating a simple nonviolent crime like they're breaking into Scarface's mansion. The way you overcome saturation of the senses is by training. Obviously, something was amiss here with their procedures.

[Number 6]

Thoreau-Unless they're entirely ignorant or disdainful of basic gun safety, yes. The four rules as I learned them in the Marines sum it up:
1) Treat every weapon as if it were loaded. (I shorten this to "All guns are always loaded."
2) Never point a weapon at anything you do not intend to shoot.
3) Keep your finger straight and off the trigger until ready to fire.
4) Keep the weapon on safe until ready to fire.

Those are the basic rules, repeated ad nauseum at any range, and there is no way the SWAT guys didn't know them. None. A pilot would be more likely to not know to do a pre-flight check list.

[mediageek]

"This doesn't seem like a mere negligance or accidental shooting based on what I read. My gut tells me there were some sinister motives involved on the part of the shooting officer"

No need to attribute to malice that which can be attributed to stupidity. It's a running joke in the gun culture that cops are generally clueless when it comes to safely employing firearms.

Combine this with the testosterone-soaked subculture of SWAT and its not a big surprise at all.

Anyone else seen the video of the DEA shmuck who negligently discharged a pistol into his leg in front of a classroom full of kids?

[Jake]

Ah yes, I'm with you Matt.

We hear this a lot. 'highly trained' so it's ok. It's funny how when a 'highly trained' cop shoots someone it's an 'unfortunate accident' but when someone who fought a few pricefights 20 years ago punches someone it's 'assault with a deadly weapon' because they were 'highly trained'.

Or when a cop shoots their partner in the foot during transition training to new pistols the chief says '*shrug* accidents will happen' but if the same thing were to be done on a private range by a non-cop, there would be cries of how such things were negligence and could never happen if the person was using their firearm diligently.

But saying 'police' and 'double standard' in the same sentance is redundant.

All of this is small potatos when taken with the overreaching policy of using shock troops (and they ARE) to serve a warrant.

Why not simply arrest the guy when he's not at home then go search his house later? It saves using tanks to burn his house down. (oh wait, that was a different instance)

Jake
(who has no patience for violence where none is required)

[mediageek]

Er, Has anyone else...

geeze.

[ChicagoTom]

If a private citizen with a concealed carry permit fucked up like this, he'd be thrown in the clink for a very long time.

Which leads me to ponder, if more places allowed for concealed carry permits, do you think the rate of these types of shootings and the acceptance of them would go up?

I'm not trying to attack conceal carry permits, but one thing that does give me pause is the thought that if the cops know more people are potentially packing wouldn't they tend to be more trigger happy during what would normally be considered safe or non-dangerous circumstances?

And would we see even less punsihment and more leniency for cops who commit wrongful shootings? (Assuming that they would use the fact that someone might have been carrying a gun as justification)

[libertarian chuckles]

Believe it or not, I was actually talking to an ex-narcotics officer from Fairfax County about a week ago. (Sadly, the reason he is no longer with the squad is not because he saw the folly of the Drug War.)

He was regaling us with stories about how he would do some rudimentary hippie profiling and then harass the hell out of the suspected perp--just terrorizing the shit out of them before he took them downtown.

As a way to indirectly bring up the dangers of overzealous policing, I brought up the Corie Maye case. The ex-cop thought that the murder charge should not be in court because "the problem should have been handled on the spot."

This is the problem with giving cops too much latitude. When stuff gets out of control, citizens dies at the hands of police.

Of course, with the new, more conservative judiciary, we can expect such official abuses to go unpunished.

[dhex]

"Anyone else seen the video of the DEA shmuck who negligently discharged a pistol into his leg in front of a classroom full of kids?"

http://www.compfused.com/directlink/680

it'll more or less make you sick (if someone's talking about drugs, run away from them?) then you'll laugh until you're sick.

it's good stuff.

[mediageek]

"I'm not trying to attack conceal carry permits, but one thing that does give me pause is the thought that if the cops know more people are potentially packing wouldn't they tend to be more trigger happy during what would normally be considered safe or non-dangerous circumstances?"

Given the extremely low rate (something on the order of far less than 1%) of concealed carry permit holders who are convicted of a violent crime, any cop who used this as an excuse would, at least in my book, be highly suspect of trying to cover something up.

[Jennifer]

Goog God, dhex. It's not even the fact that he shot himself; it's that he shot himself two seconds after he said that he's the only one able to safely handle a gun.

Heh heh heh.

[Matt]

Which leads me to ponder, if more places allowed for concealed carry permits, do you think the rate of these types of shootings and the acceptance of them would go up?

To expand on MG's comment, the fundamental difference with civilian CCW is that a civvy would presumably not be drawn and trying to restrain someone. If you're put into a situation where you must draw, it would be a life threatening thing to begin with, not a person just standing there. Secondly, you wouldn't be trying to restrain the person, you would be trying to get them to stop, either by having them flee or by applyling lethal force. Civilian types wouldn't have a need to hold a person at gunpoint and walk them around the way police would.

[John]

If you pull a weapon there is always a chance that you are going to use it. The risk of someone accidentally being shot is inherent with any operations involving weapons. The military deals with this issue all the time. How do you weigh force protection against the risk that someone is going to accidentally shooting themselves or an innocent person? You have to weigh the risks. Sometimes you issue weapons. Sometimes you don't and you have the people who carry those weapons carry them in different states of readiness depending on the risk. In place like Kosovo, the weapons might not be loaded or if they are, there is not a round in the chamber. In a really dangerous place like Iraq, weapons are locked and loaded anytime you leave the wire.

The problem seems to be that the police don't weigh the risk of shooting someone. They only look at the risk of being shot. That anyone would have a blanket policy to use a Swat team on every search warrant is ridiculous. Who are you searching? What are you searching for? What are the risks? These are questions that need to be answered and the answers determine what your threat posture is.

Cops seem to be incapable of thinking this way. I remember I got into an argument with a cop I know about how ridiculous is was to show up with a swat team to take Elian Gonzales. His response was that no one really knew what might be in that house and therefore it was necessary to show up guns drawn for the safety of the officers involved. My response was that if you cannot go into a house with a gun and a badge and control the situation without automatically having to stick a loaded gun in someone's face, you don't sack to be in law enforcement and ought to look for another profession. Needless to say he didn't like the answer.

The bottom-line is that it is pretty disgraceful that the military whose sole job is to kill people and break things can understand that there are risks associated with drawing weapons and not every situation requires or justifies kicking in the door locked and loaded and the police whose duty is to "protect and defend" cannot.

[Matt]

it's that he shot himself two seconds after he said that he's the only one able to safely handle a gun.

Yep, that one's pretty famous. Has been for a couple years in shooting circles. Almost made me think that it was staged, myself, given the timing you mention.

I will admit I thought it was pretty funny at the end where he asked for a full auto firearm and you could hear everyone in the room saying "NOOOOooooo"

[Kip]

Watch this:
http://www.collegehumor.com/movies/65910/

keep your eyes on the female cops gun.

oops

[jf]

My 13 year-old son is currently living with a Fairfax County police officer (boyfriend of his mom) and considering the stories coming from there lately, the sooner he moves back to Ohio (he's already decided he hates it there and is moving back with me permanently this summer) the better. These stories seem to be coming from Fairfax more and more frequently.

[David]

Matt,

I think ChicagoTom meant " Would having a concealed carry permit increase the likelihood of gunned down while being served a warrant? "

I'd say yes, based on the SWAT raid in Sunrise, FL a few months ago.

[ChicagoTom]

RE: The Concealed Carry question I posed...

Maybe I'm not communicating well...

When i said "do you think the rate of these types of shootings and the acceptance of them would go up", "these types of shootings" meant police improperly shooting suspect who seem to be complying (like in the linked article)

My worry is that as more places allow Concealed Carry permits that the police in those situations would be more trigger happy whenever they are detaining anyone (whther that person has a gun, or even a permit for that matter) and if police will try to use the general "With CC permits, I never know who has a gun and who doesn't therefore my shooting of the suspect is justified"

[jf]

Kip:

That dumb cunt should have been fired immediately and prohibited from every possessing a handgun. Instead, I'm sure she lost a day's pay and had to take "gun management" classes.

[ChicagoTom]

whther that person has a gun, or even a permit for that matter

should have been :

regardless of whether that person has a gun or not or even a permit for that matter

[John]

My worry is that as more places allow Concealed Carry permits that the police in those situations would be more trigger happy whenever they are detaining anyone (whther that person has a gun, or even a permit for that matter) and if police will try to use the general "With CC permits, I never know who has a gun and who doesn't therefore my shooting of the suspect is justified"

Chicago Tom,

I don't think it makes any difference. Its a cop culture that says, I always have my gun draw in these situation because I might get shot. The risk of accidentily shooting myself or someone else never enters into it. Further, what the actual risk of this situation, never enters into it either. I don't think conceal and carry enters into it. The cops are not that rational.

[JD]

I do understand the rationale behind having your finger on the trigger and weapon up if you're doing a SWAT-type raid. If you're really in that kind of dangerous situation, taking an extra second could get you killed. However, WTF were they doing playing Rambo to serve a warrant on a non-violent criminal? I'm reminded of a bit from Waco: the Rules of Engagement, where some Fedcop testifying before Congress says, "That old stuff - with detectives walking up to the front door with a warrant - we don't do that kind of thing anymore."

And, for your further stupid-cop negligent-discharge viewing "pleasure"...

[matt]

Sure makes you proud to live in Fairfax. Jesus. It seems like I see a story like this on almost a daily basis now.

[JD]

D'oh. It's the same video Kip posted, I think.

[John]

JD,

It is the culture now. Look at Elien Gonzalas. They went in with assault rifles to take a five year old from his grandmother. I mean give me a break. What if someone really had had a gun or what looked like a gun and they opened up and killed God knows how many innocent people? They have ceased to consider the potential negative consequences of drawing a weapon. They just don't care anymore. It is very disturbing. To quote the guy from Waco, "we just don't do that anymore because what do we care if we accidentily shoot someone?"

[mediageek]

ChicagoTom-

I could see some cop who's inadvertently shot a suspect trying to use that as an excuse, but honestly, I don't think it would fly for a couple of reasons:

1) Some states that issue CCW permits will flag it in a database. Others have laws on the books that make it mandatory for a CCW permit holder to tell a cop if they're carrying. In other words, if the cop has put even a slight amount of time into it, they'll already know if you've got a permit.

2) Concealed carry permit holders have an even lower violent crime conviction rate than the average population, thus making it highly unlikey that someone with a CC license would be out committing crimes.

3)Criminals will carry firearms regardless of what the law says. They are, after all, criminals.

[R C Dean]

According to the article, there was . . . $38,000.00 found in the residence

Not illegal. Oh, and also

a small amount of cocaine

One word: throwdown. Or is that two words?

I mean, after they wasted the guy, they had to do something to make him look like a perp. I'm surpised they didn't throw down a gun as well.

[Jennifer]

I remember once in my junior-high-school civics class, the teacher was talking about how warrants were specific. The example he gave was, if cops have a warrant looking for certain stolen goods, then even if they find an enormous pile of cocaine on your kitchen table they can't do anything about it. Is this still the case?

I'm guessing not.

[foobie]

No need to attribute to malice that which can be attributed to stupidity.

Corollary to Clarke:

Sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.

[mediageek]

"I do understand the rationale behind having your finger on the trigger and weapon up if you're doing a SWAT-type raid."

I don't. Moving your finger from an indexed position along the side of the firearm to being on the trigger takes less than a second.

The NRA published an (admittedly informal) study on this in American Rifleman Magazine several years ago, and using a stopwatch, couldn't find a time difference between bringing a pistol to bear on target and firing a shot from a starting position of having the trigger finger indexed vs. having it already on the trigger.

[John]

I remember once in my junior-high-school civics class, the teacher was talking about how warrants were specific. The example he gave was, if cops have a warrant looking for certain stolen goods, then even if they find an enormous pile of cocaine on your kitchen table they can't do anything about it. Is this still the case?

Jennifer, your teacher was an idiot. It was never the case. It is called the plain view docterine. If the police have a legitimate reason to be there and notice evidence of a crime in plain view, they can seize it and prosecute you with the evidence.

[Jennifer]

Jennifer, your teacher was an idiot

Well, yeah. . .

[JD]

Jennifer - I'm not sure that ever was the case. My understanding is that, generally, if the cops are allowed to be there (because of a warrant, or you invited them in, or they had probable cause), then they can take action on any criminal activities they see. Yes, this does open itself to some abuse - "I was chasing a prowler, and I just happened to see this illegal activity..." What they can't do is things that aren't reasonably permitted by the warrant - e.g., if they're looking for a stolen 747, they can't open your closet to look for it. But I think warrants often get around that by saying something like "A 747, or parts thereof." Then again, IANAL, and I could be completely wrong about this.

[Number 6]

Jennifer-I think your teacher was referring to a doctrine (which I never hear about anymore) that a warrant is not carte blache to tear the place apart. The warrent should specify what the cops are to look for. If, for example, they are looking for a stolen car, they do not get to rip open the sofa cushions, since cars don't fit in cushions. I forget the case that the doctrine came from, but it involved a set of stereo speakers. The warrant stipulated what the cops were to search for, but in the course of the search, they looked up the serial numbers on a set of speakers, which turned out to be stolen. I could be horribly wrong, but as I recall, that evidence was tossed.

[Number 6]

JD and I are talking about the same case. I'll dig out my ConLaw texts tonight and see if I can find it.

[Matt]

Matt
I think ChicagoTom meant " Would having a concealed carry permit increase the likelihood of gunned down while being served a warrant?

(and subsequent response by CT)

If you drew down on them, yes. If you had it in a truly concealed position, they wouldn't know anyway. If (in VA as a place where this is legal) you had it open carry, I'd be real clear that my hands were no where near the holster. Most CCW holders are just people, are not specifically looking for something though some do talk big. If faced with a full blow SWAT team, they'd recognize it for what it was, and not do something so stupid as draw on them.

As for this specific officer, as I said previously, low guard position (drawn with the pistol in hand but muzzle downward, if people are unfamiliar, definitely not pointed at suspect or anyone else) is completely acceptable to me even if the decision to use a SWAT team was questionable. It's a ready state which is justifiable when there is a possible threat present. Covering someone who is not armed and presents no immediate danger is suspect. Doing so with a finger on the trigger is asking for a couple years next to the DC snipers.

For full disclosure I do have a VA CCW, and do exercise it occasionally to more than occasionally. I've also had too many hours of firearm training in the military, as well as privately, and I do some instruction myself. My teachers do teach SWAT, FBI HRT, Seals, etc, all the "big" guys in usage, I don't go study with backyard bubba stereotypical people, but I don't find a lot of those in the serious firearm guys (unisex 'guys') crowd. I probably do know more than a lot of people about the mechanics of how to handle things, but as Thoreau said, this is first day basic stuff, not high level.

[Pro Libertate]

I remember a case on that in Crim. Pro. Something about moving a stereo. If it's not in plain view, you can't make it so by moving things around that your authorized search doesn't, well, authorize. I assume that's still generally good law, except when terrorists or drugs are involved. Or the children.

[methodman]

while we're on the fucked up cops-pointing/shooting guns video kick, don't ever forget Goose Creek, where all the kids escaped with their lives (by the grace of the flying spaghetti monster) after having guns pointed at them, after being cuffed, and having cop dogs search all their shit. (Link to video at bottom of the page.)

You know what they say..."A learning environment in which the kids are cuffed and held at gunpoint by the cops is a safe learning environment!"

[independent worm]

Again, I ask, why they can't take people out in the open, after they've left their home. FFS, they tailed the guy for three months. They observed him over and over. They knew where he was, where he went, and when he went there. They could have taken him at work, getting in his car, or anywhere else they wanted to.

The act of going into the home creates the "unknown" that increases the threat level to the police.

If they take a guy in the open, then go into the house after he's been controlled, there's not so much danger. Especially when you're just taking down a suburban optometrist.

[thoreau]

I think independent worm asks the best question. I'm obviously not a SWAT guy, but I'd rather have a bunch of plainclothes cops in the vicinity of the house, able to watch him from several angles and come at him from several directions when he leaves. Going into a house means that you can't see what's behind a door or around a corner.

Then again, taking him in plain sight means witnesses to any misbehavior.

[David]

Matt,

I misinterpreted CT's position. I was thinking more in terms of whether police, when serving a warrant to someone whom they know has a concealed carry permit automatically treat the person as more dangerous despite the nature of the warrant. Something like "We know that Matt has a pistol permit, so lets send in the SWAT team to serve this warrant for unpaid parking tickets, just to be safe."

[Rimfax]

In the article and in the comments here, the phrase "not an accident" keeps coming up. It seems that the shooter was a 17-year veteran and he shot an H&K .45. Presumably, he had more than enough experience not to be "jacked-up" for another routine bookie warrant and more than enough pounds of pressure holding that very heavy trigger to make this plausibly an accident.

[Bobster]

(sarcasm) Everyone is missing the truth. The nearest airport may have been less than 20 miles away! The police knew that at any moment the suspect could have made a mad dash, escaped and got on an airplane. He then could have overpowered the pilot and flew the plane into a building killing thousands! This officers heroic action saved thousands of lives! (/sarcasm)

I've said it before and I'll say it again. This shit happens because the police believe their own hype. They really think they are surrounded by super murderous criminals who can't wait to maim and kill and that they are the 'thin blue line' that keeps everyone in check.

[Eric the .5b]

"How often are police actually shot in this country executing a search warrent?"

Not often enough, considering the shit they pull.

I really want to say this is an intemperate, unjustifiable statement. It's just really hard to do so.

[Jeff P.]

I've just been accidentally shot by Claudine Longet!

Man, that never gets old...

[methodman]

Eric, if the server hadn't eaten my other post with the hyperlinks, I'm not sure you would have even been able to get that far with your half-complaint. I didn't say most cops deserve to get shot, but a lot of them do deserve to get shot, and proportionately more (relative to innocent civilians) as well.

Like these Hall-of-Shamers:
[Fuck the server. The cops who killed: Tom Crosslin, Rollie Rohm, Alberta Spruill, Peter McWilliams, Anthony Diotaiuto, and the entire Drug War Victims memorial hosted at DrugWarRant Dot Com]

I don't think anybody can say that those cops have any more of a right to be alive today than the people they killed or maimed for the stupid-ass reasons they killed or maimed them for. Those are stories of criminality and criminal negligence in the pursuit of sticking their cop noses in business that just wasn't theirs - abusing power and abusing people who just weren't hurting anybody at all. You know the rules..."We were just following orders" is not an acceptable defense, and had those people killed the abusive cops before they got killed, they would have been absolutely, 100% justified in doing so. Their lives had to be (by definition) threatened before they were taken, so they had a theoretical chance.

But, hey, they're just collateral damage in the war on vice. Can't make an omellette without killing some motherfuckers, as the old saying goes.

[the friendly grizzly]

"According to the article, there was a small amount of cocaine and $38,000.00 found in the residence. So, he was either an addict or drug dealer, and this shooting will probably be ruled justifiable."

Gads, those throw-down kits are complete, aren't they?

How about just making the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of cops who do this shit public record? Let the street take care of this matter.

For the record: I am free of any arrest or arrest record. I obey the law to the best of my ability, which in this day and age is not easy. That being said: I avoid police at all costs. I flat don't trust them. At ALL. With seizure laws and all the rest, the incentive is just too strong. "Nice car you got there. We think you're a drug dealer. It's ours and you have no recourse".

[methodman]

Wow - I just read through the Drug War Victims memorial in full for the first time in a while.

Until Laura Ingraham and all those other talking heads start dealing with the reality that the drug war is 10000x more fucked up and abusive than Kelo ever could be, they're two-faced hypocrites in my book.

But life is about building coalitions, so here's the story of Donald P. Scott, 61 years old, killed October 1992:

Government agencies were interested in the property of this reclusive millionaire. A warrant was issued based on concocted "evidence" of supposed marijuana plantings, and a major raid was conducted with a 32-man assault team. Scott was shot to death in front of his wife. No drugs were found.

A later official report found: "It is the District Attorney's opinion that the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department was motivated, at least in part, by a desire to seize and forfeit the ranch for the government. Based in part upon the possibility of forfeiture, Spencer obtained a search warrant that was not supported by probable cause. This search warrant became Donald Scott's death warrant."

[methodman]

["But life is about..." should probably be "But political life is about..."]

[methodman]

Alberto Sepulveda, 11 years old, Modesto, CA:

Alberto was killed by a shotgun blast to the back while following police orders and lying face down on the floor during a SWAT raid. He was a seventh-grader at Prescott Senior Elementary School.

Ashley Villareal, 14 years old, San Antonio, TX:

Ashley went outside at night with a family friend to move their freshly washed car under shelter. DEA agents, interested in her father, were staking out the house, and believing that her father was driving, shot and killed Ashley. The agents did not have a warrant for her father. Read The Murder of Ashley.

[Matt]

"We know that Matt has a pistol permit, so lets send in the SWAT team to serve this warrant for unpaid parking tickets, just to be safe."

Actually, this does happen, but happens more when someone says "he's got a gun" or something. A guy I know had a vindictive ex wife do this to him, he was in the garage minding his own business, and a full blown SWAT team comes in with a tactical deployment. He was standing there drinking a cup of coffee. He was arrested, his firearms were eventually returned to him, but they still put him through a ringer. He was not a CCW permit holder.

Point is, I don't think simply having a CCW would bring this on, a simple description on a "witness" behalf, biased or not, would be enough.

[Ando]

Why are we still reading about shit like this happening? Why aren't more people in this so-called free country disgusted at how the Nazi Police State can erode and trample or rights (not to mention commit murder and get away with it), yet a cop never has to worry about their rights being threatened. This crap will continue until someone with the balls takes action to make it stop. Cops don't give a shit about non-cops, we're nothing but potential suspects to them. These bastards are leading this nation to a second civil war...and they started it.

[Obviously]

Why are we still reading about shit like this happening?

Because, though few will admit it, almost everyone viscerally loves it.

The end.

[John in Nashville]

Just because they're fish, and just because they're in a barrel, does that mean that the cops shouldn't shoot them?

[dead_elvis]

Just because they're fish, and just because they're in a barrel, does that mean that the cops shouldn't shoot them?

When all you have is a barrel and a gun, pretty soon everything looks like a fish...

[mugs]

There was a time when death squads were only in South America. We now have them here...Revolting!

[jw]

"Cops don't give a shit about non-cops, we're nothing but potential suspects to them. These bastards are leading this nation to a second civil war...and they started it."

You all really don't seem to get it, do you?

IT'S NOT JUST THE MOTHERFUCKING COPS !!! IT'S THE WHOLE, ENTIRE, GODDAMNED GOVERNMENT!!! against anyone and everyone who is NOT part of the government! Local, county, state, federal...from the lowliest garbageman all the way up to the prez, himself....anyone who is a public employee is in a class apart. The rest of us are just peon subjects. That is the way it has been all throughout history and that is the way it probably always will be. (Especially if kids are taught about government in government-run schools.)

[Retired irish cop]

Wow, cops really have become a bunch of pussies, haven't they? They used to beat the shit out of people for minor crimes and then let them go, now they're like little girls all decked out in military gear to bust some non-violent suspect.

[Mark B.]

Sorry to interrupt the cop hate-a-thon, but I just wanted to thank Jesse for his reference to the Kinks' 20th Century Man - one of my all-time favorite "Sing Along With Ray Davies!" tunes.

And yes, what the cops pulled here (and have pulled routinely throughout our Glorious War on Drugs) is outrageous, but unfortunately most Americans will continue to condone and make excuses for it. After all, the cops are there for Our Own Good, just like the Patriot Act.

[SPD]

Anyone know what the Freeper/Fox News take is on this? Pro-individual freedom or pro-War on Drugs?

[John (the IT guy)]

Cop shoots cop,

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10750040/

[dead_elvis]

Anyone know what the Freeper/Fox News take is on this?

I was sort of curious myself if MSM was going to do anything on this, and caught a little bit of Fox last night (disclaimer: I never watch TV news crap, I just overhear it when my wife has it on...). What was the main topic? Cindy Sheehan of course!

[Robert]

"...when I was a teacher, I was held to a much higher standard of behavior than my students, even the ones who were legal adults, because I was the one with Authority. Thus, if a student told me to go fuck myself he'd get a few day's detention, whereas if I told a student to go fuck himself I could lose my job. And I think that's exactly how it should be. And yet--I never had anything even CLOSE to life-and-death powers over my students.

"If I was held to such high standards when the most power I had was the ability to make a kid repeat a grade, why shouldn't cops be held to such high standards when they have the power to take away a man's freedom or even his life?"

I suspect the law of supply & demand for labor is involved here. That is, when deciding whether to take a job, among the concerns a prospect factors in are safety & liability. It may be that cops would be a lot more expensive if they were held to the same standards as teachers, and/or if they didn't have someone with a gun accompanying them for minor routine matters such as this.

[mediageek]

"Anyone know what the Freeper/Fox News take is on this? Pro-individual freedom or pro-War on Drugs?"

I've spent very little time on Free Republic. Fox Nooze tends towards being pro-WOD, though sometimes, at least on their website, they tend to get it right.

I'm pretty plugged in to the online-side of the gun culture, which generally includes people ranging from free-market anarchists to authoritarian social conservatives, and more than the average number of cops, all around.

I can tell you that this sort of stuff nearly always degenerates into a flame war.

[mediageek]

Well, maybe Fox Nooze doesn't get it right, but I vaguely recall reading an editorial or two about the WoD's being kinda dumb.

[Smappy]

I spent three years living in Fairfax, and one in nearby Manassas. I never had any SWAT officers burst into my home, but the toxic level of traffic cops was enough to make you feel like you were living in Pyongyang.

[Smappy]

Yowzah! I just looked up the street where they guy lived on google maps. It's just down the road from where I had an apartment for two years (Oakdale Crescent Court). Looks like I left town just in time.

[strat]

That's just dandy. I too live in urbane, yet suburban, Fairfax County. I confess I've always figured that our police department is a lot like I imagine Beverly Hills' to be. (Axel Foley notwithstanding) That is, over-equipped via a ton of D.C.-area federal NIJ/DHS spending but generally professional. And by no means the worst out there.

I have to admit that visions of the ne'er-do-well police in Prince Georges County would keep me from ever getting a good night's sleep in that part of Maryland. By contrast, Fairfax County is a bastion of security. For better or worse.

All that having been said, I'm facile enough with firearms to wonder what was more important to this unnamed (what's that about, anyway?) officer than paying attention to his DRAWN FIREARM? It would seem a negligent manslaughter trial of some sort would be in order. Lord knows they'd have me in irons the same evening if I ever discharged a firearm in defense of my own home.

I received a propaganda flyer from my County Supervisor today enumerating her misguided legislative agenda for 2006. I think that merits a letter in response inquiring what she'll do about this awful situation.

[Shem]

Concealed carry permit holders have an even lower violent crime conviction rate than the average population, thus making it highly unlikey that someone with a CC license would be out committing crimes.

In a country with no-knock searches and cops that routinely go to the wrong house in search of godless terroristic drug dealers, do you really think that innocence is any sort of defense, mediageek?

[Matt]

This morning, I read a story where an off duty NYC cop gets popped by another when the pull up and see him holding a guy at a suspect on the ground. As I said, normal CCW guys aren't going to restrain and arrest someone. However, in further answer to the question of whether or not you're at more risk from the police, this is a pretty good example of where you'd be in that position.

Then again, NYC doesn't have functional CCW, this may be why.

[wayne]

"Judge Alito overturned that lower court ruling against the police shooting, claiming that any amount of force used by the state in enforcing it's laws was constitutionally justifiable."

Amazingdrx, please give a citation on this case. I would like to read it myself.

[mediageek]

"In a country with no-knock searches and cops that routinely go to the wrong house in search of godless terroristic drug dealers, do you really think that innocence is any sort of defense, mediageek?"

Of course not.

Doesn't change the fact that they're wrong.

[amazingdrx]

"?In 1984, for example, Judge Alito wrote a Justice Department memorandum concluding that the use of deadly force against a fleeing unarmed suspect did not violate the fourth amendment. The victim was a 15-year-old African American. He was 5 foot 4. He weighed 100 to 110 pounds. This unarmed eighth grader was attempting to jump a fence with a stolen purse containing $10 when he was shot in the back of the head in order to prevent escape. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals found the shooting unconstitutional because deadly force can only be used when there is ?probable cause that the suspect poses a threat to the safety of the officers or a danger to the community if left at large.? That is what we teach law enforcement officials."

?But Judge Alito disagreed. Judge Alito said: No, he believed the shooting was reasonable because ?the State is justified in using whatever force is necessary to enforce its laws??even deadly force. That is his conclusion. That is the standard that is going to go to the Supreme Court if ratified. It is OK to shoot a 15-year-old, 110 pounds, a 5-foot-4-inch kid who is trying to get over a fence with a purse, shoot him in the back of the head."

http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=1774

There it is. Civil libertarian politics, Kerry style.

[Shem]

Doesn't change the fact that they're wrong.

Of course they are. But people with a CCP are just as likely to find themselves in a situation where a cop has made a mistake, and in that case they're just as likely to be shot.

[Flatulus Ancienne]

I have this thing about gays. Can't stand being around them. Disgusting.
So I tells my son "If you come home and tell me you're gay, I'll still love you as a son, but don't EVER tell me you're a cop."

[mediageek]

"Of course they are. But people with a CCP are just as likely to find themselves in a situation where a cop has made a mistake, and in that case they're just as likely to be shot."

Yes, and...?

[Shem]

You pointed to the fact that people with CCPs commit crimes at a lower rate. I was making the point that this doesn't matter when cops don't make the distinction between criminals and people caught in the wrong place in the wrong time.

[wayne]

"http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=1774

There it is. Civil libertarian politics, Kerry style."

Amazingdrx,
So, you are quoting a speech given by John Kerry on the floor of the senate as the position of Judge Alito? Just imagine, a Democrat senator casting a Republican as a murderous racist.

So, the next time I need to understand the Democrat position on, oh, I dunno, say affirmative action, I will just look to Karl Rove, I guess. Thanks for your insightful contribution about the evil, murderous Alito. Now, if only Senator Kennedy would sober up long enough to tell us what he thinks of this "Alioto" guy. Maybe they can just have Hillary rip his nuts off and thereby render "Alioto" more Democrat-like.

[wayne]

I guess I will comment on the actual topic of this thread.

Firts point: Having a full blown SWAT team participate in every warranted search is idiotic. That sort of force is bound to result in tragedy, and it did in this case.

Second point: Any cop who is so incompetent as to have a negligent discharge of a firearm should be fired. Safe handling of weapons is of the utmost priority, and it is not rocket science, it is actually very freaking easy. The video of that lady cop in Las Vegas makes me absolutely cringe. Why on earth is her weapon pointed at a suspect who is face down on the pavement with a 200 pound male cop kneeling on his head? Why is her finger on the trigger of that weapon? She ought not be allowed to carry a weapon as a cop.

[Jason Sonenshein]

Wayne, the case is Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985). You can read it here.

[amazingdrx]

Well wayne, you admit you are a neo-conservative corporatist opposed to the protection of the rights of the individual built into the US Constitution?

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

But wouldn't you feel more comfortable in a dictatorship? Rather than working to convert this country to one.

You are of course in favor of the rights of corporate citizens, good for you. You would fit well in say...saudi arabia.

[flatulus ancienne]

My apologies to all concerned regarding my previous tasteless post.

[R C Dean]

Having a full blown SWAT team participate in every warranted search is idiotic.

Yes, but it does let you justify a massive paramilitary team in an area with a pretty low violent crime rate.

Its all about the budget, baby.

[mediageek]

"You pointed to the fact that people with CCPs commit crimes at a lower rate. I was making the point that this doesn't matter when cops don't make the distinction between criminals and people caught in the wrong place in the wrong time."

From that standpoint, no, it doesn't. A trigger-happy cop is a trigger-happy cop. But from an overall view with regard to gun control it does. After all, if your average citizen is more trustworthy with a firearm than the average cop, it does tend to riddle the concept of gun control full of holes.

[wayne]

"Well wayne, you admit you are a neo-conservative corporatist opposed to the protection of the rights of the individual built into the US Constitution? "

Amazing, I have checked my writings, and scan my admittedly flawed memory, and I find nothing about being a "corporatist", whatever that is. Maybe it was Kerry who made those allegations about me, and you are just "remembering" them as my actual stated positions. So far as the constitution is concerned, I am all for it, and I support the bill of rights, as written.

[wayne]

Jason,

Thanks for the citation to the case. I read about half of it. I found nothing to indicate that Alito was involved in the case at all. His name is not mentioned in the case brief (I did a ctrl F search of the web page). Maybe Kerry was just knocking back a couple of double scotches with AmazingDrx and Kennedy when he attributed that "quote" to Alito?

[Dave W.]

At Free Republic they were more focussed on potential entrapment during the 3 month betting relationship that the police had with the alleged bookie, and also whether there were some side bets to the main investigation that went bad somehow.

[Dar]

This type of thing will not stop until a few people who have the power to make it stop suffer from it directly. Its all fun and games until someone gets killed then its just fun right?

Want to see a reduction in no knock raids at 3am and SWAT military tactics? We should all flood the legalized thugs with tips about drug stashes/dealers all over the country. Using only the addresses and names of politicians their friends and associates and families.

Let a few of their own lives be ruined by what they have no problem ruining others with and you might get some kind of change. Those who make the rules rarely actually live by them. Just like the Souter home domain case fight fire with fire. Unless they are getting burned by their own laws they will never give a rats ass how many of the little people get fucked over daily.

Its just like the piss police HR and Administration where I work. They don't see anything wrong at all with forcing you to submit your bodily fluids in the front office reception area. Of course they don't because they aren't the ones ever having to piss. You ask why they don't have to and its because of policy stating they don't have to. Then they proceed to tell you that it is against the law to do drugs. Oh really thats news to me I had no idea drugs were illegal for me to take but not you evidently since your not tested. Exactly what other state and federal laws does this company go out of its way to make sure they enforce for the feds and state? After that question I got the typical stupid HR woman look as she tried to recall some standard company line to cover it but she couldn't.

Ya know sodomy was illegal for years in a lot of states. Just think if it still was we might be forced to submit to random anal swabbing to keep our job, after all if we let people corn hole the terrorist will have won and not to mention the children!

[amazingdrx]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism

It's Alito's political predilection wayne, I assumed you shared it, since you appear to support him.

Sorry if your support of him was in error, these fellers dupe many.

[TJ]

"Maybe Kerry was just knocking back a couple of double scotches with AmazingDrx and Kennedy when he attributed that "quote" to Alito?"

Wayne, you aren't trying very hard here. Judge Alito wasn't on the SC back in 85. The citation isn't going to contain his name. Alito wrote a Justice Dept. memorandum supporting the use of deadly force in this case. It's worth noting that the SC disagreed with him.

See:
pdf

[wayne]

TJ,

I followed the Jason's link and Alito was not mentioned in THAT link. That is all I said.

But I do thank you. This is such a revelation: Alito is before the senate for a confirmation vote right now, today in 2006, and now I discover that he was NOT ON THE SC in 1984. Wow! Thanks TJ.

I will take a look at the link you supplied, and hope to see something that Alito actually wrote, or said.

[wayne]

TJ,

Congratulations, we are getting closer. Your link at least contains references to Alito, although not a single word written BY Alito. Maybe we need to get the word out to Senator Kennedy that we are floundering here and we REALLY need some words to put in Alito's, er, uh, I mean Alioto's mouth.

[TJ]

Wayne,

Congratulations, after your last post we (and by that I mean the Royal we) are now certain that you have drank the koolaid.

What a tool.