Update on Chesapeake, Virginia Drug Raid

A local television station has obtained copies of the search warrants leading to the drug raid in which 28-year-old Ryan Frederick shot and killed police officer Jarrod Shivers.

The initial warrant claims a confidential informant told police Frederick was operating a sophisticated marijuana grow operation in a detached garage near his home. The warrant says the informant first informed police about the operation in November, and that the informant was in both the garage and Frederick's bedroom within 72 hours of the raid. The raid seems to have been conducted solely on the word of the informant. It makes no mention of a controlled buy at the house, nor does it mention any surveillance or other corroborating investigation.

Let's assume the informant was telling the truth. Why in the world was the forced entry necessary? If this guy was running a sophisticated grow with a hydroponic watering system, there's no way in hell he could have disposed of the evidence. Why not wait until he wasn't home to execute the search warrant? Why force confrontation? Frederick had no prior criminal record. Even if he were growing plants, it's hard to fathom that a guy would knowingly kill a police officer over some marijuana plants.

Here's where it gets weird. After the initial raid, the police obtained a second search warrant to go back into the home. The return sheet for that warrant lists a gun, some ammunition, a "shoe," a TV, and few other items. It says nothing about any drugs, hydroponic equipment, or drug paraphernalia. Perhaps the police only searched the house on the second sweep, and didn't search the detached garage. But it's been more than four days now, and police have yet to say anything about finding any drugs at all in Frederick's home, much less a major marijuana operation in his garage. When police legitimately find drugs in one of these raids, that's generally one of the first things they release to the public. It makes the raid appear justified. And it makes the suspect appear guilty. Perhaps they'll come forward with all of this in ensuing days. But right now, it's odd that they haven't.

The article also mentions that the court had to postpone Frederick's arraignment because he hasn't been able to find an attorney.

Note: Please refrain from making disparaging remarks about Officer Shivers in the comments section. The man left behind a family. We also don't yet know what happened. Criticize the policy and tactics all you like. There will be lots of time to figure out what happened in this particular case. But let Officer Shivers' family mourn. Going forward, comments calling for the death of cops--or celebrating the death of this one--will not be tolerated.

Comments

[Brian Courts]

When police legitimately find drugs in one of these raids, that's generally one of the first things they release to the public. It makes the raid appear justified. And it makes the suspect appear guilty. Perhaps they'll come forward with all of this in ensuing days. But right now, it's odd that they haven't.

Looks like it's taking the police a little longer than they had expected to dig up all the "drugs, hydroponic equipment, or drug paraphernalia" that they um... "found" at the site. They probably had to call around to neighboring jurisdictions for help when they realized their reach had exceeded their grasp with this ambitious warrant.

And, if the cops have learned anything from these raids-gone-bad, it's how to get their story straight first. Unlike their police work in general, when fabricating excuses they know it's important to take their time to do the job right the first time.

[Ventifact]

One other thing that doesn't make sense is why an informant would make such grand and specific claims if he didn't know them to be true.

Also, props for the class displayed in the final paragraph of the post, Mr. Balko.

[.]

In before Nancy_Randian makes an asshole out of himself. Well on this comment thread anyways.

[Mona]

But let Officer Shivers' family mourn. Going forward, comments calling for the death of cops--or celebrating the death of this one--will not be tolerated.

That man and his family may well be as much a victim of this militarized war on (people who use) drugs as so many others have been, a lot of cops included.

[Argo]

"In before Nancy_Randian makes an asshole out of himself."

But by an amazing coincidence, you got in at the exact time you made an ass of yourself.

[.]

"In before Nancy_Randian makes an asshole out of himself."

But by an amazing coincidence, you got in at the exact time you made an ass of yourself.

Only because you were slower.

[Cosmo-Blasphemy Boundary Test]

The man left behind a family.
He shouldn't have done that.

[Warren]

Going forward, comments calling for the death of cops--or celebrating the death of this one--will not be tolerated.

Not be tolerated? I assume that means they will be removed, and the offending commenter might possibly be banned?

It saddens me when H&R limits our freedom of speech. So much is tolerated here, it's one of our greatest strengths. Where else do you see such engagement of dissenting views and even trolls.

I understand the sentiment being expressed here. I agree that such comments are inappropriate and contemptible. Still, I'd rather see chastisement over censorship.

At least the policy is being stated up front so we know where the line is being drawn.

[.]

We also don't yet know what happened.

Very true. Which is why I have confined my comments to those commenting on the situation.

After the initial raid, the surviving police obtained a second search warrant to go back into the home.

[miche]

Radley,
Thank you so much for remaining human while documenting inhumane acts. You are a gentleman and can only bring positive light to our position on this matter.

[Happy Jack]

It saddens me when H&R limits our freedom of speech.

What did they do, shut down your blog or something?

[thoreau]

Warren, you know the libertarian boilerplate as well as I do: "It isn't censorship because it's a privately owned yadda yadda yadda...."

And I, for one, cannot bring myself to celebrate any death resulting from the insane Drug War. It may be that some of the victims of the drug war were eager participants in the insanity, but that's no reason to rejoice in a death. In a world with sane policies those people would be alive to make their own mistakes at their own expense, and maybe even learn some lessons.

[LibertyPlease]

And I, for one, cannot bring myself to celebrate any death resulting from the insane Drug War.

Then you sir, would be more civil than many of our nation's hired peace officers.

[Metal Messiah]

It occurs to me that our second amendment rights are incompatible with the police state we are trying to create.

Thanks to the second amendment, the American people have the right to keep arms for self defense. As such, every time the police go to arrest someone they're looking at a potential exchange of gunfire.

And we also find ourselves living in a political climate that seeks to criminalize any number of non-violent victimless crimes ranging from marijuana possession, gambling, prostitution and pornography.

At some point, we're either going to have to give up our right to keep and bear arms or stop using the legal system to punish sin and vice and save the SWAT teams for actual violent offenders.

[fire_the_Judge]

Of course, the person really responsible for all of this has judicial immunity.

[LibertyPlease]

It occurs to me that our second amendment rights are incompatible with the police state we are trying to create.

I hearby propose calling it the Hero State, and nominate Bush for the Congressional Medal of Tyranny Herodom for filing that amicus brief with SCOTUS to do away with those pesky 2nd Amendment Privileges!

[rodingo]

Wow, LibertyPlease, that site you linked to, pretty heady stuff:

This was like 3 posts in:

OK, I don't want to jump to conclusions, but I am getting SICK AND TIRED of hearing about Officers getting shot and our fellow Warriors not returning fire! Hello, F-ing cover fire Gents, get the job done! This is really something that pisses me off, we are breeding a bunch of victimsnot warriors!

Then this one a few minutes ago:

JackBootedBlueLine, Kiss my ass, BITCH!! Anytime you think you're so bad just call 911 and level some threats to your local PD that are not so anonymous. You are a civilian NOTHING - act like it. Your thoughts, opinions, and the air you breathe are NOTHING. Crawl back in your hole and smoke or inject your dope and continue your dungeons and dragons fantasy world where you are a lord with something to input. Other than that you're not a boil on this Detective's ass who actually contributed something to the world he lived in. Is there something is thread bringing out the mentals????

[LibertyPlease]

You are a civilian NOTHING - act like it.

Yeah, we're all just civilians now. Well, except for those superiorly badged civilians.

[Ayn_Randian]

In before Nancy_Randian makes an asshole out of himself

Eh, wot's all this now? Some kind of low buzzing sound mixed with the putrid stench of santorum.

It saddens me when H&R limits our freedom of speech.

Warren, like thoreau said: You know better.

For all of you quoting the militant sentiments given by a few (or many) commenters on a police officers' discussion board, so what? Would you like it if they quoted some of horrible crap that was posted here last week as representative of libertarians?

No? then why would you do the same thing?

[Sparky]

"For all of you quoting the militant sentiments given by a few (or many) commenters on a police officers' discussion board, so what? Would you like it if they quoted some of horrible crap that was posted here last week as representative of libertarians?"

I think an important consideration is how many commenters are saying these things, and how others respond to them. I haven't looked at the particular thread where the repugnant "You are a civilian NOTHING" line comes from, but I have gone to other police discussion threads, and in my experience this sort of shit 1) is much more common, and 2) goes unchallenged far more often than occurs here.

Maybe your experiences are different; if so, I'd be curious to hear about them. Otherwise, that's a hugely important difference. If shitbags like Hagbard (on a previous thread on this topic) are quickly and widely criticized here, while "You are a civilian NOTHING" guys are accepted or even encouraged on those threads, there's not much comparison. A lot of groups have assholes like that; how others respond to them is more telling than their existence.

[KD]

If shitbags like Hagbard (on a previous thread on this topic) are quickly and widely criticized here, while "You are a civilian NOTHING" guys are accepted or even encouraged on those threads, there's not much comparison. A lot of groups have assholes like that; how others respond to them is more telling than their existence.

Well said.

[M]

Reading the different opinions people post stimulates me to consider viewpoints other than my own. Reading still others' responses to those viewpoints, I learn more about those others than I had known from their previous comments, and am sometimes moved to appreciate more humane aspects of posters I might have been more familiar with from their cruder expressions.

I was repeatedly gratified to see the rally championing individual officers' safety while roundly condemning the policies these agents execute. At the same time, those who, to me shockingly, celebrated the death of a servant of aggression gave me occasion to think through the implications more concretely. Witnessing, and perhaps participating in, the conflict offers me new angles for future discussions with others and within my own mind. I am still new enough to libertarianism to profit from exposure to opposing viewpoints that seem obvious to their respective possessors.

Unpopular expressions and their ensuing disputes are more instructive than the many, many gratuitous insults and cuss-words I read here. The latter material is something I accept as the price for more useful information for which I've learned to skim, and when it becomes burdensome, I take a break. Access to what flourishes under license for expression is what draws me back.

[John C. Randolph]

"It saddens me when H&R limits our freedom of speech."

Your freedom of speech is in no way affected by how the owners of this web site choose to operate it. Say what you want, on your own dime, on your own site. When you post on someone else's site, you accept their terms.

-jcr

[M]

What, btw, is the legal status of tasers in private ownership, which would seem one way to prevent this sort of thing?

[Monkey of Fear]

One little tidbit before I go to work ... and it is a bit off topic, but in keeping with the scary neo-con, chest-thumping, knocking down your doors to keep you safe attitude ... talk about Petraeus in 2012 is starting to heat up now. Here is the link

[I like Ike and George W(ashing]

One little tidbit before I go to work ... and it is a bit off topic, but in keeping with the scary neo-con, chest-thumping, knocking down your doors to keep you safe attitude ... talk about Petraeus in 2012 is starting to heat up now. Here is the link

Because every other general we've elected has been a warmongering neo-con, anxious to involve us in foreign wars and completely beholden to the military-industrial complex.

[Anonymous]

Don't count on an attitude similar to Radley's from the blue brotherhood who will gleefully cheer at the execution of Ryan Frederick.

[R C Dean]

What, btw, is the legal status of tasers in private ownership, which would seem one way to prevent this sort of thing?

Legal almost everywhere, ineffective against body armor.

[M]

Thanks, R C Dean. Figured it was (relatively) too good to be true.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

"Your freedom of speech is in no way affected by how the owners of this web site choose to operate it. Say what you want, on your own dime, on your own site. When you post on someone else's site, you accept their terms."

I swear "libertarians" are a trip sometimes.

Freedom of speech is good because:

1. More freedom is good (y'know, "liberty")
2. Speech does no one direct harm
3. More speech is beneficial to society

Sure, an entity that is actively shutting down others speech is of course worse than one denyng speech on its own (fairly public mind you) forum. But one can still criticize the latter as wrong. All Reason/Balko needed was to argue as Balko did above that criticizing the cop is wrong. Fight speech with speech.

You guys should be called "privatarians" or "contractarians" since at heart whether there is more freedom in the world is at best a secondary concern to your property rights worship.

[LibertyPlease]

What, btw, is the legal status of tasers in private ownership, which would seem one way to prevent this sort of thing?

As the police keep demonstrating, Tasers are a punative measure to be used only when there is no danger. If there are armed intruders in your house your best bet is a 12ga loaded with 00 buckshot. Taser is too risky, and besides, the non-LEO versions are defanged (like everything else).

I'm not advocating shooting police, but with the way they execute these RAIDs you won't be able to tell who is invading at first. You have to protect you and yours first, then sort out if they were random criminals or the state-sponsored kind.

[Lamont A Cranston]

"If this guy was running a sophisticated grow with hydroponics and a watering system, there's no way in hell he could have disposed of the evidence."

Hydroponics is a watering system.

[Dave W.]

My proposals (well, I think I might have ripped nos. 1 and 4 off Mr. Balko):

1. legalize the drugs (I think the US is far likelier to decriminalize drugs than to cut back on gun rights).

2. failing #1, no SWAT raids for a couple crack rocks or a bag of weed -- exclude evidence from SWAT raids unless the evidence shows a crime of violence (from before the swat raid was called). If the drug stash is large enough then a conventional service of search warrant will be sufficient to preserve the evidence, and if the drug stash is small, then there is no need to put police officers and non-police officers at risk. This could be done by extending the exclusionary rule.

3. Failing #1 and #2, there should be heightened requirements to get a warrant for surprise entry raids. No "confidential informants." If there is an informant, then you bring him before the magistrate. Also, a higher evidentiary standard than mere probable cause should apply for a surprise entry raid.

4. make police officers film the notice given at the SWAT raid, so that if the police are going to say that they "announced," after the raid goes badly and a copper catches one in the teeth, then we can see if that is really true before charging the unsuspecting occupant of the dwelling with murder one.

[smartass sob]

Legal almost everywhere, ineffective against body armor.

If one were to attempt using a taser on a cop, one would probably get a few magazines emptied into one - unless the officer was alone.

[Reinmoose]

I must have missed something....

[Reinmoose]

I think the US is far likelier to decriminalize drugs than to cut back on gun rights

Really? I mean... really!?

[Rimfax]

What's the drink count so far? I'm confused. I think that I drink for Mr. Nice Guy's comment....

[Episiarch]

Legal almost everywhere, ineffective against body armor.

Also ineffective against multiple assailants.

You guys should be called "privatarians" or "contractarians" since at heart whether there is more freedom in the world is at best a secondary concern to your property rights worship.

I guess you don't understand the First Amendment then. Not surprising, but it's funny that you would feel comfortable exposing yourself as an idiot like that.

[brotherben]

I don't know the importance of this but does the confidential informant share any responsibility in this from a legal standpoint?

[Lamar]

Hmmm.....libel/slander?

[Tbone]

I trust the Reason moderators to balance offensive posts/posters with care. This is day-in and day-out one of the best blogs out there.

Removal of offensive posts is usually move effective than bans which seem to encourage the really vile to adopt a new pseudonym and get more agressive.

As to the matter at hand, I don't see justification for forced entry except where there is strong evidence of multiple armed suspects. In every other case, detaining the person entering/leaving and then searching the property seems far safer for all involved.

Haven't the cops ever heard of Recon?

[James Ard]

MNG, No, No Please. No more complicated labels that take days to sort out.
Radley is only saving us from ourselves. It only takes one or two radical assholes to give enemies of freedom enough fodder to hang us.

[MKiely]

You guys should be called "privatarians" or "contractarians" since at heart whether there is more freedom in the world is at best a secondary concern to your property rights worship.

I didn't realize freedom and property rights were separable.

[PoliceLink]

The cop discussion degenerated pretty quickly - not good on a condolences thread. However, there's a new (non-condolences) thread on PoliceLink to discuss the issues...

[Nick]

Question: What is the liklhood that the alleged criminal will be found to be not guilty of any drug related crime yet still be on the hook for killing a police officer when the only reason for firing during the raid was that his home was being invaded? Yeah, I thought so.

The problem I see from this is that the officers death will always be solely placed on the alleged criminal (even if no other crime is ever found). Neither the judge, the commanding officers, the deceased officer, nor the informant will take any heat here. (OK, maybe the informant to some small degree.) The end result will be that such raids will continue as they always have and potentially more police and homeowners will be killed unnecessarily. Rarely, do we learn from our mistakes.

By the way, why do cops TRUST informants? Seems ironic.

[Taktix?]

I swear "libertarians" are a trip sometimes.

I know it's early, but...

DRINK!

[Steve S.]

So Radley, we can still celebrate the death of "civilian nothings" all we want, right? Yeehaw!
(And thanks for the suggestion, Taktix. I think I just might.)

[Ayn_Randian]

I know it's early, but...

Let's not keep up appearances.

We're all alcoholics, let's embrace our inner wino and be on with it!

So Radley, we can still celebrate the death of "civilian nothings" all we want, right?

No, "we" cannot, and considering it wasn't a problem on the board (whereas the celebration of a LEO's death was), I hardly see the need for Mr. Balko to address it.

"we" are subject to the rules of this website. So suck it up.

[Dave W.]

Really? I mean... really!?

1. I cross posted that post from another discussion. That comment wasn't really relevant here, so I should have deleted it.

2. However, it is interesting as to why guns came up in discussion at the other board. The other board is more international than here, and the comment you tend to get is: "since you guys have gun rights, of course this type of police behavior is needed." I don't agree, but that is what outsiders looking in, say, fwiw.

3. Finally, to answer your question: as far as any large changes go, I do think decrim of drugs is more likley than crim of guns. As far as small changes go, that is probably likelier in the gun area than the drug area. But, that is just a gut instinct. I don't really have an articulable basis for this hunch.

[Steve S.]

A might tetchy are we, Ayn?

[Lamar]

Dave W:

A heightened evidentiary standard for SWAT raids is reasonable. But we're in the midst of a right-wing shift away from the exclusionary rule, not towards embracing it. Remember all the hullabaloo about Scalia's "new professionalism" in police work? When it becomes apparent that our Constitutional rights depend on some crazy, out-of-touch, made-up shit from Justice Scalia and the American public buys into it, I can't imagine we'll progress towards a more sensible policy. We haven't shown any sense in the past, why would Americans all of the sudden "get it"?

[Dave W.]

A heightened evidentiary standard for SWAT raids is reasonable. But we're in the midst of a right-wing shift away from the exclusionary rule, not towards embracing it. Remember all the hullabaloo about Scalia's "new professionalism" in police work? When it becomes apparent that our Constitutional rights depend on some crazy, out-of-touch, made-up shit from Justice Scalia and the American public buys into it, I can't imagine we'll progress towards a more sensible policy. We haven't shown any sense in the past, why would Americans all of the sudden "get it"?

If the exclusionary rule is in flux, then that may present an opportunity for change in a way that helps everybody.

One compromise would be to get rid of the exclusionary rule for very serious crimes only, but to enforce it more seriously when the evidence is evidence of something less than murder, rape or kidnapping.

Another compromise would be to keep the exclusionary rule in the case of surprise entry raids, but get rid of it in the case of raids with notice to the suspect.

By letting go of some applications of the exclusionary rule that rub crime-nuts the wrong way, we may be able to strengthen in contexts that matter, using a sort of jurisprudential ju-jitsu.

[B]

"Note: Please refrain from making disparaging remarks about Officer Shivers in the comments section. The man left behind a family. We also don't yet know what happened. Criticize the policy and tactics all you like. There will be lots of time to figure out what happened in this particular case. But let Officer Shivers' family mourn. Going forward, comments calling for the death of cops--or celebrating the death of this one--will not be tolerated"

That you actually have to tell people on this site not to make disparaging comments about the death of a man devoted to protecting the citizenry of his town speaks volumes about the people who post here on a regular basis. What is even worse is that people on this site actually seem to be indigant about the rule. Absolutely pathetic.
I guess this asinine mindset partially explains why so many people have spilled so much ink apologizing for the vile bigot, and interference-runner for Truthers, Ron Paul.

[Bob Dobbs]

I cannot mourn Officer Shivers' death when his brothers have raided my house, lied to get the search warrant, and threatened to sodmise me in front of my two year old daughter. Will they not celebrate if their lies and coerced confessions rip me away from my daughter? He made his bed and I will not mourn.

[J sub D]

comments calling for the death of cops--or celebrating the death of this one--will not be tolerated.

Thank you, Radley.

[B]

"It saddens me when H&R limits our freedom of speech"

No one is limiting your freedom of speech you hyperbolic primadonna. This is a privately owned-site, not an agent of the government. I guess if someone came on this site and started making vile racial statements about black people and how horrible they were, Reason would have to tolerate it? Oh wait, I am still thinking about the Ron Paul newsletters.

You have just as much right as you always did to smear this cop, you just have to do it elsewhere, or are you suggesting Reason be compelled to post your opinion. Wow, what a remarkably libertarian impulse, poser.
Frankly, I think they should post your comments. That way, this site can be held up for richly-deserved ridicule along with the sites that cheer Tony Snow's cancer recurrence and Dick Cheney's heart condition. Because let's face it, the commentary from the posters here is no more insightful then that found on Democratic Underground.

[David]

That you actually have to tell people on this site not to make disparaging comments about the death of a man devoted to protecting the citizenry of his town speaks volumes about the people who post here on a regular basis

B,
Thanks for making nice broad generalizations about all regular Hit and Run posters based on the comments of a few drop-ins. You're doing great work there.

[B]

"I cannot mourn Officer Shivers' death when his brothers have raided my house, lied to get the search warrant, and threatened to sodmise me in front of my two year old daughter. Will they not celebrate if their lies and coerced confessions rip me away from my daughter? He made his bed and I will not mourn."

His brothers? So now all police are awful because of the actions of a few bad apples? Wow, the reactions to a reasonable restriction are even more retarded than I thought they would be.

[PoliceLink]

This post surely wins the thread over at the PoliceLink thread, where any attempt to suggest that Ryan Frederick may have a chance of being proved innocent results in deletion:

with that being said and as I will say I feel you are a attempting to inflame an arguement and to distrute the order of this site and your numerious name changes shows this

and since you feel your opinion is a calm and rational one then my opinion is stated the same for a person to come onto a police site and desicreate a posting of condulences is the highest form of if disrespect and then to further question legalities without proof to those who request proof ( or as you might state, " prove your an expert witness") otherwise I see you as malitiously and with forethought attempting to create an inflamed situation.. you have shown no real evidence to support otherwise . your tacide responses of my condulences to the family is a smoke screen for your launches of your manifestios you've posted under a number of different names.. and the sooner this situation is resovled the better your posts have no redeeming value to this site

Join in the fun...

[B]

"B,
Thanks for making nice broad generalizations about all regular Hit and Run posters based on the comments of a few drop-ins. You're doing great work there.'

I am not making broad generalizations, genius. I am making reasoned observations based upon quite a bit of experience reading the comments that are always made by a large percentage of the people that post here. I can't remember a story ever posted on this site where the death of a police officer was not cheered in a case like this. And this is exactly why the author felt the need to make the restriction, because it is so common on this site. All one has to do is read the replies by the various crybabies concerning said restriction to know I am right.

[T]

I guess if someone came on this site and started making vile racial statements about black people and how horrible they were, Reason would have to tolerate it?

Paging Grand Chalupa... Grand Chalupa, you have a comment from a Mr. B...

[JC Denton]

His brothers? So now all police are awful because of the actions of a few bad apples? Wow, the reactions to a reasonable restriction are even more retarded than I thought they would be.

Not defending Bob Dobbs and his opinion, but haven't you just painted all "regular" posters here as essentially vile for the postings of a few (in your 10:36 comment), and now condemn a man for painting all cops as awful based on the actions of a few?

Isn't there a word for that?

[J sub D]

It saddens me when H&R limits our freedom of speech.

You do realize that this is Reason's house. When people spout obscene, disgusting, morally objectionable things in my house, I show them the door. I don't generally invite them back. How about you?

[DavidS]

You do realize that this is Reason's house.

I think we all get the private property argument, J sub D. I think Warren was simply stating his opinion that this should not be dealt with by banning people.

Personally, I disagree (mostly because Radley's work on this issue will be discredited very easily if he does not take this line), but Warren's was a reasonable opinion, coherently stated.

[Aresen]

Why is Ryan Frederick having trouble getting a lawyer? Is is lack of funds or are the legal beagles afraid of the cops?

comments calling for the death of cops--or celebrating the death of this one--will not be tolerated.

Amen. For those who don't like it, you're not welcome in my house, either.

[Steve S.]

So, can we all agree to celebrate the fact that Ryan Frederick survived?

[J sub D]

So, can we all agree to celebrate the fact that Ryan Frederick survived?

Hell yes. Nobody should die over marijuana. Not cops, not users, not dealers. Nobody.

[PoliceLink]

So, can we all agree to celebrate the fact that Ryan Frederick survived?

Not if you're posting on PoliceLink you can't seemingly:

glad to see that this turned back into what it was supposed to be to begin with....a tribute to Det Shivers! R.I.P. brother and lets hang this bastard Frederick!!

[T]

So now all police are awful because of the actions of a few bad apples?

No, all police are awful because there is a systemic problem with how police departments are organized and trained. The actions of a few bad apples simply serve to point out just how badly broken the system is at this point.

[NoStar]

Steve S.

I'll drink to that.

[Anarcho Agoro]

Those vaunted LEOs were sent to kick down a man's door in the dark of night, seize the man by force (to be imprisoned and ransomed), and search his home for valuables to seize. I feel exactly as much sorrow for the dead man as I would for a gangland enforcer subjected to the same treatment while trying to execute the same brigand's mission and calling it a "job".

The self righteous outrage being heaped upon those not displaying proper sorrow for the tragic loss of human life is not moral in nature. It's nasty monkey troop politics taken to semantics. Aspiring troupe leaders find an unpopular monkey to beat on, so as to demonstrate to teh observers how bad-ass they are.

*insert that appropriate Robert Anson Wilson passage here*

[Bob Dobbs]

For the record I know that not all police are not awful. The fact is I vacation with police officers who know me and love my daughter. They will be at my trial to vouch for my character and my innocence. Officer Jarrod Shivers was a narcotics officer. This is the fact which removes all pity from my heart. If a beat cop was killed stopping a bank robery I would mourn. Officer Jarrod Shivers made his bed and I will not mourn.

[CivilianNothing]

This is really very simple. When a large group of loud, armed men in body armor breaks into your house, the only sensible thing to do is lay face down on the floor, put your hands behind your head, and comply with instructions. After all, the government authorized the search warrant, and the government would not do anything unethical in the process of obtaining a search warrant. Only a criminal would object to having his home searched by the police.

Fear is a useful emotion. Only a criminal would not feel fear and consider defending his home against armed invasion. Law-abiding citizens have nothing to hide and should welcome the government into their homes with open arms, as soon as the police officers decide it is okay to uncuff them.

Remember, as civilian nothings, it is our civic duty to obey precisely and instantly every order given by any police officer. A badge gives a police officer infinitely more freedom and authority than an ordinary person, as well as the privilege of being simply "better" than people who are not police officers. To a seasoned, well-trained police officer, all civilians are potential criminals, and it only makes sense that police officers be as aggressive as they possibly can in order to protect themselves from harm. If a few civilian nothings are injured or killed along the way, those civilian nothings should die knowing that they were helping to promote peace and order.

However, every police officer who dies in the line of duty is a martyr and a saint. He will be instantly canonized by his peers and regarded as a hero by the civilian nothings of his jurisdiction, who know that, however he may have acted in life, his death was a senseless atrocity, a sacrifice in the long war to prevent criminal civilian nothings from doing horrible things that hurt other people, like smoking marijuana or playing poker in their living rooms.

[T]

Hell yes. Nobody should die over marijuana. Not cops, not users, not dealers. Nobody.

Amen to that.

[Jennifer]

And I, for one, cannot bring myself to celebrate any death resulting from the insane Drug War.

I haven't "celebrated" the cop's death, nor will I, but I will say this: if someone had to die in one of these bullshit raids, better the cop than the innocent homeowner victimized by a legalized home invasion.

And "he was only doing his job" is not an excuse anymore than "I was only following orders" was.

[Steve S.]

Naughty, Jennifer! Naughty, naughty, naughty!

[whiskeyjuvenile]

I read a lot of people talking about holding the informant responsible, to which I would ask: "What informant?"

[Jennifer]

Meanwhile, here in Connecticut the state Supreme Court just ruled that a town can't fire a cop for merely lying on an arrest warrant. (At least not if the town misses a filing deadline.) Cops truly are above the law, remember.

http://www.courant.com/news/local/hr/hc-blonoappeal0119.artjan19,0,2738986.story

It was unclear Friday when Rajtar would return to work. His award includes more than $80,000 in wages and more than $19,000 in medical expenses. The town is also required to repay $11,000 to the state in unemployment benefits Rajtar received.... Rajtar was fired after internal affairs said he had lied on an application for an arrest warrant in connection with an investigation of an incident at Lee's Famous Recipe Chicken on Blue Hills Avenue.

Shame on anyone a few months ago who cheered when this cop initially lost his job. He probably has a family to support and everything, poor guy.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

"What's the drink count so far? I'm confused. I think that I drink for Mr. Nice Guy's comment...."

Well, my post went a little farther than decrying Reason's "unreason" or such, which I've thought was usually the drinking game. I've said this many times before that I think libertarianism is often a misnomer. Libertarians that I meet here are usually fine and dandy, in fact eager to advocate the rightessnous of (rather than perhaps lamenting the neccesity of) practices that end up in a net decrease in the exercise of, yes, liberty as long as it was done by "voluntarily contract" or in relation to someone's property rights. Hence my suggestion that a more appropriate name would be "propertarians" or "contractarians."

J sub D-I'm not sure your house analogy is apt. An internet site is more like a billboard than a house, and a billboard inviting comments is more like a chalkboard...To then whine when someone writes something you don't like is sad...

[Dave W.]

They are real ban happy over at the policelink.

[R C Dean]

They are real ban happy over at the policelink.

Could it be any other way?

[Dave W.]

Eh, some cites are more tolerant than others, I find. I had always had The Feral Genius tagged as one of the tolerant ones, until recently, for example.

[DavidS]

They are real ban happy over at the policelink.

Hostile too.

[brotherben]

this is interestong

http://www.idaho-post.org/

Idaho police school slogan about going out and causing PTSD. just commentary on the mental state of future police officers

[brotherben]

interesting even

[Jennifer]

An internet site is more like a billboard than a house, and a billboard inviting comments is more like a chalkboard...To then whine when someone writes something you don't like is sad...

As is writing on the chalkboard and then getting indignant if the owner erases your scrawls.

[x,y]

Going forward, comments calling for the death of cops--or celebrating the death of this one--will not be tolerated.

1. Reason is not a state actor, so First Amendment issues are moot. That said, this would definitely be a case of restricting speech. There just happens to be no legitimate legal or moral violation.

2. I don't know if you'll call this "celebrating," but the guy made his bed and now he has to sleep in it. Of the millions of professions he could have practiced, he choose one that involved engaging in nighttime military-style raids on a plant grower (allegedly) with no evidence to support the claim but a confidential informant. I feel sorry for his friends and family, but let's not pretend the police officer was a saint.

[PoliceLink]

Third attempt to discuss the issues over at PoliceLink.

Here's a sample:

I have executed over a thousand search warrants. I don't think I need some piss-ant telling me how to do my job. So take your so called "White paper" and wipe with it.

And...

Yeah, CalTom is probably running a meth lab in his kitchen and wants to know under what circumstances would he have unexpected guests for dinner.

[M]

does the confidential informant share any responsibility in this from a legal standpoint?

Today's New York Times tells us that the police have been remunerating some confidential informants by supplying them street drugs. Now, what testimony could be delivered in better faith than that of an addict bartering for his fix?

[zig zag man]

The actions of a few bad apples simply serve to point out just how badly broken the system is at this point.

It's not just a few bad apples, it's the system that allows these creeps to operate with impunity. The thin blue line immediately surrounds them and shields them from the outrage of the citizens they are sworn to protect.

[NoStar]

"Doing his job" is tantamount to "just following orders."

In the immortal words of Superchicken to his faithful sidekick, "You knew the job was dangerous when you took it, Fred."

My time is better spent mourning the death of our freedom from unreasonable search and seizures and our rights to be armed so that we can protect ourselves.

When enough Americans stop mourning dead jack booted thugs who were just doing their jobs and mourn the loss of our freedoms (and the freedom of one man who sits in jail for defending himself and his property) then we can reclaim our liberty.

[Kwix]

But it's been more than four days now, and police have yet to say anything about finding any drugs at all in Frederick's home, much less a major marijuana operation in his garage. When police legitimately find drugs in one of these raids, that's generally one of the first things they release to the public.

Got that right Radley. Sadly, I expect this to run along the same lines as Cory Maye. I guess the only good thing is Dr. Hayne doesn't work in Virginia.

[ChrisO]

Couple of thoughts:

--the confidential informant could conceivably be held criminally liable if he lied to the police. But he almost certainly can't be sued over it, because statements to police and in court are subject to absolute privilege under slander/libel law.

--People don't become cops because they are rocket scientists or good at nuance. As such, the reactions at PoliceLink are entirely predictable. Cops are really nothing more than hired muscle. It's the people pulling their strings that need to be questioned, removed from office, and sued into bankruptcy.

--Radley's work on this and other cases is maybe the best libertarian work going on at present. Unfortunately, our society is going in the wrong direction. I fully believe that our descendants will have to fight for their liberty again someday.

[Troubleshooter]

...why would you come to this sight and disrespect LEOs and others by citing a paper that is obviously left-wing liberal oriented.

Wow...

Who knew?

[TrickyVic]

I see nothing wrong with Radley asking for us to respect the officer that was killed. I do have a little bit of a problem with the "rights" issue.

Hummmm, rights don't apply to private institutions? Maybe that's why government is moving more toward privatizing. And, if my question is true, why would people who support freedom support a mechanism to remove freedom?

If freedoms are only in affect against government, and we want less government, what happens to our freedoms?

Freedom of speech protects unpopular speech. I'm not sure why said freedom should be alienated in a forum in which the public is encouraged to speak. If you want to "privatize" H&R you may do so by requiring registration and link that registration to conduct agreement. If you don't like want the peanut gallery has to say, keep them out.

Granted, Reason has the ability to remove what ever posts it wishes. But if it does so, it is not constant with people who believe in free speech. Having said that, censorship rarely happens here.

[Nick]

Vic, as libertarian government's sole role is to protect from force and fraud, that should be their action, not taking our rights away and either selling them back to us piece meal via licensing or simply banning them. Those are improper roles of government.

Now, if you're an anarchist, then there is no proper role of government, so my recommendation would be to get a holster for that gun and make sure it's loaded before heading outside. You would be completely responsible for your own self-defense from force and fraud.

[lee brenn]

Small Change got rained on with his own .38. 🙂

[The Johnny Appleseed of Crack]

Going forward, comments calling for the death of cops--or celebrating the death of this one--will not be tolerated.

Yeah, I know Radley Balko/Reason has a right to place whatever restrictions they like on comments, up to and including eliminating comments entirely. However, what is gained by restricting such comments, as childish as they may (or may not) be? I doubt that the slain officer's family is reading this comment thread; so how would it interfere with their mourning process?

There are many rude and inflammatory remarks posted in the comments section, and directed at other posters (who actually do read the comments, and whose feelings might be hurt). Why single out the "I dance on dead cops' graves" type for prohibition? It smacks of political correctness, and dare I say, cosmotarianism.

[LitlePepito]

I know this is a bit off topic and I do offer my condolences to Officer Jarrod Shivers family. My father in law was an officer and kept getting knocked down the ladder of command simply because he wasn't P.C. enough.

Anyway, I've noticed through this website that multiple people have questioned what penetrateds body armor. Now don't get me wrong I do not condone a Rambo appearance to the police and simply trying to shot everyone down. If by some may hap I were to receive a search warrant I would let the officers in the house, but they would have to announce and not do one of thoughts wonderful "no announce raids" that they seem to be so enamored with now a days. Far to may actual criminals have already figured out how to catch people off there guard. One thing that doesn't require you to go through a waiting period to buy is a bow. Now I shot an English long bow, but some people might want to try a compound or recurve as they are much easier to pull. Get at least a 50 pound pull with Bodkin arrow points. This is quite latterly medieval technology, but it still works. This was specifically designed to go through change mail and with a heaver pull (100 pounds +) plate armor. This also requires that you a) build a bit of muscle and b) have to be intently pointing it at someone with enough draw force to do some damage. It wouldn't get ride of all the mistakes (I've been fired at twice accidentally by novices) but it would cut down on them.