Judge: Using Helicopters, National Guard, and New Mexico State Police to Raid 72-Year-Old Man's House Was "Excessive"

A New Mexico Court of Appeals judge has ruled that a 2006 raid in which the National Guard partnered with the New Mexico State Police to raid the home of then 72-year-old Norman Davis was "excessive," reports the Albuquerque Journal. 

The police officer leading the raid on Davis's Taos County property didn't have a search warrant, but told Davis that the National Guard helicopter had spotted what looked like marijuana plants growing on his  property, and that if Davis didn't consent to a search, police would "secure the residence" and have a search warrant within 30 minutes.

Davis's attorney has argued that the raid was thus "the product of duress and coercion or acquiescence" and that Davis's "refusal to consent was futile." A District Court judge ruled against Davis's request that evidence against be thrown out, calling the raid "just barely permissible." The Court of Appeals overruled the District Court's ruling, and the case will now go to the New Mexico Supreme Court. 

[Hat tip Radley Balko]

Comments

[Poet Laureate sloopyinca]

Not only are you guys doing the reason.com fund drive, apparently you are subcontracted to do the subscription drive for the Albuquerque Journal.

Payrall, Riggs. Paywall.

[Fist of Etiquette]

Here, you cheapskate.

[Fist of Etiquette]

Wow, that too is weird. It works as long as it doesn't direct from Reason.

[Poet Laureate sloopyinca]

You got my hopes up only to kick me in the nuts again.

But this link works.

[Fist of Etiquette]

Nice try, loser.

[Libertarian hacktivists]

are ignoring the fact that this man's property rightfully belongs to the native inhabitants of this continent. Of course, this is no surprise, as libertarians have for years decided that it is more important for them to use the Rotbhardian police power of the agricultural city-STATE to enforce their bogus claims of land enTITLEment. They use these falsehoods to restrict the free movements of peoples by using arbitrary lines of demarcation.
Officer, am I free to gambol?

[Fist of Etiquette]

This is starting to get weird.

[Poet Laureate sloopyinca]

Agreed. This fucking guy or gal is delusional beyond the point of being funny anymore.

I can't wait on the pledge drive to end and we get those "enhancements" they say are coming. Especially if they mean they will kill all trolls with fire.

[My Opinion]

I can't wait on the pledge drive to end and we get those "enhancements"...especially if they mean they will kill all trolls with fire

I'm pretty sure trolls are good for business, as they increase page views and ultimately increase ad revenues. Have any of the lifers regulars left because of the trolls? How many of the regulars here actually encourage the trolls? How many of the regulars secretly, shamefully get a thrill out of engaging and insulting the trolls while at the same time bemoaning their presence here?

The trolls aren't going anywhere.

[R C Dean]

Have any of the regulars left because of the trolls?

There was a whole generation of commenters who left awhile back out of frustration, so, yeah, I think so.

[Paul]

They were just pissed that Virginia Postrel wasn't editing.

[Poet Laureate sloopyinca]

Plenty of the guys in the reason.com FFL have bailed because of the bullshit.
Rock Action actually brought that up today on the message board.

[My Opinion]

If that's true, then the remaining commentators are individuals with much lower standards and/or those who actually enjoy the trolling. Why else would they stay?

[sarcasmic]

I'm only here because I have a really boring job. If they gave me more stuff to do (and it's not for a lack of asking) I wouldn't waste their time here.

[My Opinion]

All the toilets clean? Floors swept?

[sarcasmic]

That's a hardware issue. I don't deal with hardware.

[Barely Suppressed Rage]

I'm only here because I have a really boring job. If they gave me more stuff to do (and it's not for a lack of asking) I wouldn't waste their time here.

Holy shit! Sarcasmic and I are the same person, and I didn't even know it!

[Invisible Finger]

If that's true, then the remaining commentators are individuals with much lower standards and/or those who actually enjoy the trolling. Why else would they stay?

Trolling is rather obvious and can be easily skipped. If I happen to accidentally skip a few Epi posts in the process, so be it.

[Sharing]

If I happen to accidentally skip a few Epi posts...

That would be a feature, not a bug.

[Barely Suppressed Rage]

I'm only here to see what SugarFree is going to say next.

[Slowburnaz]

Hmm... haven't seen Tony around in a while.

[Pro Libertate]

I certainly don't stay because of the trolls. It's been a problem here for years, but trolls come and go. Best to just out wait them, or wait until Hit & Run moderates or otherwise limits the nuisance.

[Paul]

This. If I can stomach Pro L's commentary, nothing will make me leave.

[Paul]

I keed. Of course.

[Pro Libertate]

I'm actually a Google-constructed, um, construct.

[Paul]

Pro L, you're one of the few people from this board I'd like to sit in the school cafeteria and throw spitwads with.

Be warned, it's high-brow all the way with me.

[Pro Libertate]

I'm like the Hit & Run mascot.

[Cruel Master]

Go fetch this grenade!

[Auric Demonocles]

I'm torn between thinking you're cool and thinking you live in retirement community.

[Pro Libertate]

Who, me? I'm not that old. And I don't think retirement is in my cards when I do get that old. I have four kids.

[Zeb]

But you seem like the sort of guy whose kids might wind up able to support the old man in his dotage.

[Pro Libertate]

I sure hope so.

[mad libertarian guy]

That's only if the ad revenue is based on views rather than click throughs.

Most ad schemes are based on click throughs.

[My Opinion]

'Tis a mystery. Unless the wild-west commenting protocol is simply anarchy for anarchy's sake; a perverted sense of "liberty" where chaos is the inevitable result.

[rather]

My Opinion, you missed the question most of us want to know: How many of the regulars are the trolls?

[My Opinion]

I could tell you publicly, but that might get me banned, a fate too horrible to contemplate.

[rather]

I already know, and the truth doesn't get anyone banned.

[My Opinion]

Can't risk it!
Commenting too important!

[Zeb]

Pick a fucking handle, asshole.

[Zeb]

Isn't there some sort of variation on stuxnet or something that can make trolls die in fiery explosions?

[Uncle Joe]

Weird?

You know what it means when someone repeats the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result?

[My Opinion]

Yes, and his name is John.

[rim shot]

[SugarFree]

How's the diabetes, fat boy? Figured out how to make Neolithic insulin, yet?

You're a pathetic joke.

[tarran]

Wait, so rather is a dude?!?

[SugarFree]

Mail me off-board and I'll fill you in.

[Sharing]

Why not here, publicly?
Inquiring, um, minds want to know.

[sarcasmic]

aye

[Sharing]

Probably a ruse.

[SugarFree]

Gets too close to what got TAO banned, sarcy.

[Sharing]

Go ahead, risk it!

[Sharing]

SugarFree is just a big tease.
I think he's got nothing.

[rather]

Hmm. obsessed with me. How sad, and pathetic you are sugarfree.

Feel free to email me your theory. You need to get some legal advice from pro libel; actually he needs to get some too.

Hope what you email is true; that's the only defense, honey. Well, that's not quite...

[Sharing]

It's my understanding that you are the focus of evil in all of Libertaria.

No?

[rather]

Sharing, I always look for the motive; hmm, few Reasonoids inopinate

[tarran]

Done

[Episiarch]

Hit me up, privately, after NutraSweet's filled you in, so we can discuss.

[rather]

My favorite part of discovery is reading all the emails. I love that anyone who solicits wins the prize too! Of all people, I will read yours first. In fact, they will likely get a full chapter when all is said and done.

For now , we will all have to play with our imagination:

Dear mommy,

Nor one likes me me cause I'm an immoral piece of shit, and let's face it, special

signed epinoria

[Master Bater]

Oooh! It's like a slumber party! Will there be a tickle fight and kissing?

[tarran]

Done,

Wow! Fascinating in a train-wreck sort of way.

[shorter WI]

If you support cutting off a melanoma you must also support cutting off all of your limbs, otherwise you are a hypocrite. [DERP]

[Warty]

brb gotta run bison off cliff kthxbye

[Big Chief Moon-Unit]

Greetings, brave earthling who does not fall for the wily tricks of the other terrestrials.

Indeed you are correct. Soon, my spaceship shall come for you and all like-minded thinkers.

Both of you will be spared from the coming earth-destruction as predicted by the Mayans in 2012 from a worldwide, fatal Tourette's pandemic.

In the meantime, though, you must stop posting comments and lie low, lest the Others find you. Remember, Jupiter has spies everywhere!

[protefeed]

WTF does the guy being 72 yo have to do with whether this was wrong?

Is excessive statism OK if it is directed at young kids?

[Mooshelle Obama]

absolutely. You wouldn't want your children eating Happy Meals, would you?

[Pro Libertate]

Seriously, how long until the cops get armed, aerial drones?

[Sheriff Joe Arpaio]

fap, fap, fap

[mad libertarian guy]

Any minute.

[Barely Suppressed Rage]

CITIZEN! HALT WHERE YOU ARE! IMPERMISSIBLE VEGETATION HAS BEEN DETECTED ON YOUR PROPERTY!

STOP RESISTING!

[Tim]

In the future the helicopters will be replaced by drones, then we will have criminal cases initiated by software subroutines, no humans involved. Scary.

[Clich? Bandit]

Anonbot LOOOMS!!!

At least he isn't traveling in Tim.

So, I am going to assume he actually had weed for the sake of discussion. What is the legal reasoning behind "flying over you property doesnt require a search warrant...I can see it as maybe probably cause but inadmissable.

[Clich? Bandit]

hmmm....i hope one of the new enhancements is a preview button. That would help i think.

[Pro Libertate]

That's pie-in-the-sky.

In-line video would be nice. As would unordered lists and some of the more prosaic tags. Blink tags for the most loyal commenters who have, you know, actually donated money to the foundation.

[Tim]

Yeah, I'd pay to get a flashing colored logo that makes me look like a bigshot.

[SIV]

Artificial scarcity on blink tags? Might as well change the name to "Lexus tags" Everyone deserves a living-share of blink tags. <blink>Blink tags just want to be free!</blink>

[Poet Laureate sloopyinca]

traveling in Tim.

Are we bringing that one back? Please?

[dunphy]

The legal reasoning is the federal constitution, contrast with for example WA state constitution does not recognize PRIVACY, and the logic is that any private person could ALSO fly over your property. The general rule is thus ... Replacing view doctrine

WA state generally places stricter search requirements on cops, such that plain view doctrine is more limited, and inevitable discovery is not recognized AT ALL

also note that protections for curtilage are substantially less than for residences such that a mans home is his castle, but his curtilage isnot

Especially true with curtilage that is not fenced andor signed with no trespassing notices

One of the reasons I chose my state of WA is due to the higher recognition of privacy we get vs. the federal constitution

[dunphy]

Ugh,, Autocorrect. PLAIN VIEW doctrine, not replacing view doctrine

[tarran]

Ugh,, Autocorrect.

It could be worse. 😉

[Agammamon]

No, its the *courts* that don't recognize privacy.

The Constitution put limits on what the *government* can do, it does not spell out the limits of what citizens are entitled to.

[dunphy]

no, the constitution says what is limited are UNreasonable searches and seizures.

if the founders wanted to recognize a positive right to privacy, they could have

they did so with some other rights

my state did so vis a vis privacy

"Section 7 - Invasion of Private Affairs or Home Prohibited
No person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law."

THAT is a right to privacy. WA state recognizes it

that's a very good thing, btu the federal constitution does not. i WISH it did. but cops are bound by the law, not the law i wish we had.

[robc]

Sure it does. 9th amendment.

[Agammamon]

No the founders merely listed a *small* but not by any means complete list of rights.

You have the right to privacy except in certain conditions. The conditions are limitations on what the government can do.

The point of natural right is that we have these rights merely by virtue of existing, not because a government says we do.
WA state just explicity recognizes a right that already exists.

[dunphy]

it exists IN YOUR OPINION. however, as a matter of rule of law, penumbras and emanations of roe v wade aside (Which only recognizes privacy when it comes to abortion, not drug use, etc. ) , there is no recognition of a right to privacy in the federal constitution

I WISH there were

but there is not

[Barely Suppressed Rage]

It's essentially the plain view rule - if something is in plain view such that any other person would be able to see it, then cops don't need a search warrant to see it.

E.g., if a private person in a helicopter or small airplane flying over the property would be able to perceive the pot plants, then in effect, they're out in the open and you don't have any reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to them.

There actually was a SCOTUS case about that exact fact pattern.

One question is whether they flew over at normal, FAA-approved altitudes, or flew low and slow, down close to the deck, in a way that a private citizen in a helicopter would not or could not legally do.

[dunphy]

Entirely correct, except some states, such as WA do not recognize this line of reasoning, and thus we cannot do such searches. Good for us, but this is correct analysis of the federal standard which is the law in most states that do not offer substantially higher protection

[R C Dean]

I'm having a hard time with the idea that something that can be seen only from an aerial vehicle is somehow in "plain" (or is that "plane") view.

How plain is the view if you need special equipment in order to see it?

[tarran]

Because you don't need 'special' equipment.

I can rent a plane and go flying anytime I want over your property - and see you have MJ plants.

If I can do something legally in relation to your property, the police can do it legally without a warrant.

[A. Scalia]

No reasonable* expectation of privacy in the air space above your house.

*Subjective expectation irrelevant.

[tarran]

Because you don't need 'special' equipment.

I can rent a plane and go flying anytime I want over your property - and see you have MJ plants.

If I can do something legally in relation to your property, the police can do it legally without a warrant

[A. Scalia]

No reasonable* expectation of privacy in the air space above your house.

*Subjective expectation irrelevant.

[tarran]

I think the squirrels hate me. 🙁

[dunphy]

you may be sarcastic, but this actually a critical element in search and seizure law.

and certainly not invented or confined to scalia

[A. Scalia]

What's funny about the objective reasonable expectation test, is that if you polled Americans, the vast majority would in fact have an expectation of privacy in many places the law says you don't. i.e. laptop at customs, purse in a car, barn on your property, etc.

[dunphy]

laptop at customs is not based on the expectation of privacy. it's based on the border exception which is over 100 yrs old iirc.

nice try

and the purse in the car isn't based on expectation of privacy either

it's based on the carroll doctrine etc. (search incident).

and note, in MY state, we CANNOT search the purse in the car because WE have a right to privacy hth

[robc]

upskirt.

Although that expectation has been met in many states now.

[Clich? Bandit]

Yes rob or using said plane to fly over nude sunbathing actresses in beverly hills and then publishing the photos.

[dunphy]

actually, in WA they had to write a special law because the one they previously had did not cover upskirt/peeking photography

defended successfully challenged it and won

as he should have

just like a person caught doing bestiality, and charged under "cruelty to animals' won their case, since it wasn't cruel. it was bestiality

WA subsequently passed a bestiality law

[tarran]

Because you don't need 'special' equipment.

I can rent a plane and go flying anytime I want over your property - and see you have MJ plants.

If I can do something legally in relation to your property, the police can do it legally without a warrant

[Paul]

Didn't some of us get into a t?te ? t?te over plain view type stuff regarding needing special equipment, and the result came down to some people suggesting (maybe it was Dunphy) that it depended on how special the equipment was?

[Paul]

Meh, it was O3, not Dunphy (sorry, Dunphy). And here was the essence of the argument:

http://reason.com/blog/2011/11.....nt_2627853

[mad libertarian guy]

Why is anyone getting in to any argument with Double Asshole.

It's like arguing with a chipmunk with access to a keyboard.

[dunphy]

thanks. nice to see somebody who is intellectually honest.

sloopy et al will never admit error, no matter how minor when discussing with me.

appreciate it

[Paul]

Intellectual honesty made me the man I am today...

[dunphy]

i don;t think that was me, but could have been

that's basically what it boils down to

example: parabolic microphone is special.

standard microphone isn't

etc.

regardless, i like living in a state that has a right to PRIVACY

one example.

in many states, since an average person can walk up to a wooden fence surrounding a property and look through the 1/4" hole in the slats, a cop can and that is not UNreasonable search.

thus, a cop can walk up to any random house without PC or RS and do so. and what he sees is admissible

that is not true in WA. you must have some sort of articulable suspicion (RS) like a 911 call, or some reason to particularize and do that.

our nation would be much better imnsho if we had a right to privacy in our federal constitution

we don't

some STATES do

[jasno]

Any idea if California has a similar right to privacy in it's constitution?

Regarding the special equipment rule - what makes special equipment special? If I can buy a parabolic mic at radio shack, does that make it common and available for use by LE? What about commercially available drones? Is there any legal guidance on that?

Finally - they saw what they thought was MJ in his greenhouse... Do they really think their eyes are that good? How do you determine the species of plant from 200' in the air? I'm familiar with the growth habits of MJ, and I know there are many, many plants that can look just like it.

[Barely Suppressed Rage]

That generally is the current state of affairs - SCOTUS has issued opinions that seem to indicate that as technology develops and what once was high-level, state-of-the-art tech becomes more commonplace and easily available to private citizens, your "reasonable expectation" of privacy will shrink.

Can't recall the name of the case, but one the pops to mind is where the cops used infrared cameras to look at a house to see the patterns of heat emanating from inside.

SCOTUS said that since you could not perceive infrared without that highly specialized equipment, and the average citizen does not have an infrared camera and also would not be able to perceive the infrared, you can't use that as the basis of a search - in effect, you're peeking into something you otherwise would not have been able to see without a search warrant.

Of course, these days, you can get a Sony digital video camera with infrared feature for what, $1,000?

And then there's all the new backscatter technology. Only a matter of time before that's considered perfectly fine...

[Barely Suppressed Rage]

Additional thought - having flashbacks to my crim pro classes...

Basically, if the technology simply serves to amplify one of your existing senses and simply makes it easier for you to hear or see something you already would have been able to hear or see, it's generally O.K.

E.g., binoculars. All they're doing is enabling you to see something from farther away that you would be able to see if you were closer up.

Stick a microphone on a wall to pick up sounds from inside - there was a case in which cops had stuck a microphone on the outside of a phone booth to pick up the conversation inside. The general idea was that if someone standing right outside would have been able to hear what the guy was saying, then it was ok to listen in on his convo using the mike, because you would have been able to hear it anyhow.

But something like the infrared camera discussed above - you would not have been able to perceive the infrared radiation without it, so it's doing more than simply enhancing a sense you already possess - it's expanding your ability to sense and perceive things beyond what you would have been able to otherwise detect.

Pretty nice how our constitutional rights have come to depend on such sophistry, no?

[dunphy]

right. well as a matter of technology, one's reasonable expectation of privacy HAS shrunk

any average citizen can get a metric assload more info on you than they could (easily at least) by simply going to intelius.com

we (the cops) are able to get more info on people from PRIVATE databases such as this than we have in criminal databases.

there are also FAR more private companies with video surveillance, etc.

iow, technology HAS made our private lives LESS private

a purely rational approach would thus rule that law enforcement authoritah vis a vis privacy should increase commensurately GIVEN the federal constitution.

i certainly don't think plopping a GPS on a car w/o a warrant is justified, but in an era where people routinely carry around devices (called phones) that literally can track where they are at any given moment and private companies have tracked that info, where they have GPS devices in their car, etc. many people HAVE lowered their reasonable expectation of privacy

i believe a mosaic theory of privacy, which would put greater restrictions on law enforcement would be good policy, as proposed at volokh. com

[dunphy]

btw, BSR it is nice that there is somebody here who can actually comment on THE LAW, not the law as exists in their deluded minds.

we can distinguish between what we think the law SHOULD be, and what it is

many cannot

that is refreshing to say the least

[Zeb]

I'm pretty sure you still need the $20k FLIR camera to see IR through walls. Night vision on your camcorder isn't going to do it.
But I suppose you can still buy IR film for your camera (if you still have one that takes film).

[Paul]

I'm pretty sure you still need the $20k FLIR camera to see IR through walls. Night vision on your camcorder isn't going to do it

You beat me to it.

Thermovision cameras were well into the 5 figures last time I looked. But I also admit it's been a while since I looked.

[Barely Suppressed Rage]

I can buy a (gently used) FLIR camera right now for $1,200. I was looking at a potential business opportunity (home energy audits) and started looking into it. Yes, FLIR cameras go up over $5K, but you can get them starting at about $1,400.

[Gray Ghost]

The funny thing is that companies have a higher degree of privacy concerning their trade secrets than you or I do in our ordinary life. As has already been noted, flying over property at normal altitudes and spotting contraband is not an unreasonable search. But doing the same thing over a chemical plant and seeing some plant component or equipment configuration may constitute misappropriation of a trade secret. DuPont v. Christopher, 431 F.2d 1012 I just find it funny what we choose to protect in this society. Not that Christopher stops government regulators; see Dow v. EPA, 476 U.S. 227.

Akin to BSR, I'm not sure that Kyllo makes the search unreasonable if the FLIR devices are in "general public use" or if the search was of the defendant outside of their home. I'm not sure what further cases have refined the "general public use" doctrine as it relates to Kyllo. Re-reading Kyllo, I tend to think that Scalia would have changed his mind if the FLIR search was not of the defendant's home.

Agreed that getting rid of the WoSD would help remove a lot of the perverse incentives in criminal jurisprudence.

[dunphy]

note also that flying over CURTILAGE has lower degree of privacy than in other areas of property, like a deck or something.

[A. Scalia]

No reasonable* expectation of privacy in the air space above your house.

*Subjective expectation irrelevant.

[tarran]

Because you don't need 'special' equipment.

I can rent a plane and go flying anytime I want over your property - and see you have MJ plants.

If I can do something legally in relation to your property, the police can do it legally without a warrant.

[Fist of Etiquette]

In the future the helicopters will be replaced by drones, then we will have criminal cases initiated by software subroutines, no humans involved.

Skynet has to get past Judge Dredd first.

[dunphy]

I agree wit this decision. Note also, in a state like WA where we have a right to privacy in our constitution, you cannot do marijuana searches in private property from overhead WITHOUT A WARRANT. We have MUCH stronger reasonable expectation of privacy in curtilage than recognized under the 4th

Privacy FTW!!

[DuncePhy]

And yet the eevvvuuulll dems that you rail against haven't overturned that yet, whereas there are quite a few rep stronghold states with no such privacy requirement, and that take the "if you don't have anything to hide, you have nothing to fear" approach.

I really don't want to, but if you insist, I'll spend this evening going through all your old posts pointing out how consistently you claim democrats are so much worse than republicans on this.

[Confused]

Are you one of those trolls the "enhancements" will abolish? Or, being in the majority of fools, does your particular form of trolling not count as such?

[dunphy]

+10 me

[DuncePhy]

I think you only get points if you're actually spoofed, instead of just being cursed at and argued with, but I'm not sure. I'd check with Epi for a rule clarification on that.

If this counts, then I'll conceed you the points, but I really don't think it will.

[Stringfellow Hawke]

I do NOT approve

[Stringfellow Hawke]

The squirrels also posted this in the completely wrong spot.

[dunphy]

+10 me

[Kramer]

Still doing the + game?
That is soooo played out.

[dunphy]

+10 me

[George]

George is getting angry!

[dunphy]

pet the rabbit!

[dunphy]

+10 me!

[Zeb]

I think you lose the points if you double post.

[dunphy]

well, that sux. but trollz have given me points to spare, so

-10

and 10 of my points to you for pointing that out

[Fist of Etiquette]

The state Attorney General's Office has taken the case to state Supreme Court, which has agreed to hear it.

That's OK with Davis.

"I think it's a good thing," he said. "My lawyer thought this was an important constitutional question of what police can and can't do."

Isn't the downside to that for the AG that, if ruled against, the next time the coppers can't coerce someone into consent without having the fruits of that labor tossed?

[dunphy]

Coerced consent is ALWAYS vitiated. The question. Is NOT is coerced consent not valid, the question is... Is this coerced consent.

It's based on a totality of the circumstances metric and of course PROCESS analysis,not results analysis.

IMNSHO, in the instant case, the consent WAS coerced.

With that level of shown force, the consent was not VOLUNTARY, KNOWING, AND WILLING imnsho

[Fist of Etiquette]

The appeals court noted the "obtrusive" presence of officers, vehicles and a helicopter and that the officers were "heavily armed, carrying both their service handguns as well as AR-15 semi-automatic weapons."

The appeals court ruling said that when the officer told Davis it would take only about 30 minutes to get a search warrant, Davis had reason to believe that "his refusal to consent was futile."

The Attorney General's Office said it won't comment on a pending case, and State Police Chief Robert Shilling said in email that, "I'd rather not comment on operational issues and the justification of resources on any given case."

Well, as long as it's optional, I suppose I wouldn't want to justify my expenditures, either. But then, I don't buy aviation fuel on the taxpayers' dime.

[Fist of Etiquette]

The officer asked for permission to search. According to a police recording, when Davis asked what would happen if he said no, the officer replied, " 'Well, then we'll secure the residence. That's up to you.' " Davis gave permission.

He subsequently said he wasn't thrilled with the idea and said, "I don't know if I should do this; I don't know if it is in my best interest."

Davis again asked the officer what would happen if he refused and the officer said the police "would go forth and try to execute a warrant through the district attorney's office." Davis "ultimately signed the consent form."

Seems like a dumb thing to do now, but i guess when you think about it, at the time the police pretty much have everything on their side. You're one dude standing at the edge of his property with an army looming at the gate telling you they're coming in one way or the other. You're not thinking some judge otherwise removed from the situation is going to be impartial enough to stop them for you.

[dunphy]

Generally speaking,the standard for PC to search in a warrant application is viewed MORE favorably for the police than if the po.ice conduct a summary search or a search pursuant to consent.

Also, at least I my state, if consent is gained through coercion , EVEN IF the PC was good and would have been signed by a judge, the evidence will be suppressed. That's because we are amongst the few states that do not recognize the inevitable discovery doctrine

[Poet Laureate sloopyinca]

...the officers were "heavily armed, carrying both their service handguns as well as AR-15 semi-automatic weapons."

It's a good thing Davis didn't have an AR-15 Assault Rifle

[sarcasmic]

Nice catch.
Kinda like warm weather is above normal (hence abnormal OMG!) while cold weather is below average (no big deal).
Put the same firearm in the hands of a civilian and it's an assault rifle (assault OMG!) while in the hands of a government employee it's a semi-automatic weapon (no big deal).

[dunphy]

except any # of articles routinely refer to cops carrying assault rifles.

i recall an article in the seattle weekly that referred to cops carrying M-16's (which are fully automatic) assault rifles.

[Gojira]

Sorry, but I have to be a nit-picker on this (I hate myself for it but can't stop, and you need to respect my addiction).

Depends on which model of M-16. The A2 was not fully auto without modification.

[dunphy]

the civilian version that the cops carry is the AR-15, regardless of if there MIGHT be an m-16 without fully auto

note also, that you cannot look at a gun from afar, and just say "fully auto".

the point is the seattle weekly, like most newspapers, knows fuck all about gunz and automatically defaults towards the most EVUL SOUNDING

derp derp

[dunphy]

the civilian version that the cops carry is the AR-15, regardless of if there MIGHT be an m-16 without fully auto

note also, that you cannot look at a gun from afar, and just say "fully auto".

the point is the seattle weekly, like most newspapers, knows fuck all about gunz and automatically defaults towards the most EVUL SOUNDING

derp derp

[sarcasmic]

Let me look. Nope. I don't see the word "always" in my comment. I know that my comment rings true when the author/editor is a politically correct liberal fucktard, but not all articles have politically correct liberal fucktards for the author/editor.

[dunphy]

no, but your point is that the bias leans towards police. and imo, that's utter hogwash and it often leans exactly the other way.

granted, with gunz, the liberal bias is less anti-cop, since many liberals (in a rare case of police exceptionalism) want ONLY cops to have gunz

which is obscene of course

[sarcasmic]

We obviously do not read the same newspapers.

[dunphy]

no, you obviously filter what you read through your biases.

[sarcasmic]

What? You haven't posted about how the reason I despise the police is because I was convicted in a court of law? Where is the string of personal attacks dunphy? You're off your usual game there, buddy.

[dunphy]

it wasn't a discourse for your reasons for employing confirmation and selection bias. it was an explanation that you do

like most liberals i see in DU

very common disease

[sarcasmic]

I'm glad that you can, without even knowing what my local paper is, know that they do not have a bias that leans towards the police.
All you need to know is that I have a bias against the police.

By that very same logic I can conclude that your local paper does not have a bias against the police, because you have a bias in favor of the police.

See how that works?

[sarcasmic]

And yes, your local paper not praising the police at ever turn combined with my fear and hatred of the police is proof that my local paper prints stories about the cops that read like the editor gives them regular blow jobs.
One has absolutely nothing to do with the other, so that proves you to be right.
Got it.

Don't you have some tickets to write?

[dunphy]

i almost never write tickets, as i have explained to you. regardless, i wasn't talking about your local paper.

in your comment at 3:04 pm, you did not limit it to your local newspaper

nice to see you are moving the goalposts, since you recognize that you are full of it.

thanks for that concession

[sarcasmic]

sarcasmic|12.7.11 @ 3:28PM|#

We obviously do not read the same newspapers.

dunphy|12.7.11 @ 3:35PM|#

no, you obviously filter what you read through your biases.

Your comment was indeed about my local paper. Liar.

[dunphy]

no, because it was in relation to the earlier paper commenting on the media.

[sarcasmic]

See dunphy, it's shit like that that makes me hate the cops. You guys are so full of shit, you lie all the time, and stand behind your lies because people with government authority will back you up because you're a cop.
The government is supposed to punish force and fraud, not initiate it.

[dunphy]

sarasmic, it's your butthurt that you were justifiably prosecuted for a crime you admittedly committed that makes you hate the cops, which is of course entirely irrational, but that's usually how hate works

then , you seek to justify it.

you are transparent, and a sad little boy still reeling from perceived (but not actually true) wrongs done agaisnt you in the past.

you are like some deluded lover pining after his gf that dumped him decades ago, and thus hating all women

get over yourself. it aint healthy

[sarcasmic]

sarasmic, it's your butthurt that you were justifiably prosecuted for a crime you admittedly committed that makes you hate the cops, which is of course entirely irrational, but that's usually how hate works

I have corrected you on this several times, so this time I will not bother.

Again you are knowingly telling a lie and only strengthening my hatred of the police.

[dunphy]

no, it's not a lie. you are butthurt ALSO about having to pay the damages, bla bla

but you admitted to being butthurt about being prosecuted FOR the crime, since you thought it was suss, and you didn't realize DUI on a bicycle was a crime in your state

come to WA and you can drunk bicycle all you want. it's not illegal!

[sarcasmic]

I don't know how you expect people to trust the police when you go around as a representative of the police and tell blatant untruths.

Not only does it strengthen any biases that people have against the police, but you are insulting peoples' intelligence.

[mad libertarian guy]

The point, however, is that in THIS article the anti-gun rhetoric is shown front and center. It needn't be done in every instance, or even most of them, to denote a bias in the media.

[dunphy]

imo, it's far more prevalent in sitcoms, dramas, etc. than in the news

for example, when was the last drama or sitcom where an "average joe" was a CCW'er.

i can't recall one EVER where just some guy routinely carries (or ever carries unless he is in some extraordinary threat situation) a handgun unless he is a cop, private eye, criminal, etc.

in real life, it's quite common

even in frasier, where a character is a retired SPD cop, he never conceal carries.

in hollywood, normal people don't carry firearms. only the "special" do e.g. cops, private eyes, people being chased by guido the killer pimp, etc.

the media refuses to recognize the NORMALCY of it, whereas they make other much more rare stuff LOOK normal by overemphasizing it.

that's the power they have

[robc]

How I Met Your Mother.

[dunphy]

i haven;t seen it. if it;'s a counterexample, then good for the producers.

would be nice to see a rare exception to hollywoods war on gun rights, so to speak

[Res Publica Americana]

Guerena learned the hard way.

[dunphy]

well, except the shooting was justified. but yea

[Poet Laureate sloopyinca]

well, except the shooting was ruled justified. but yea

FIFY

[dunphy]

well, except the evidence clearly shows it WAS justified ... not under the law, not under the UOF guidelines as seen in the SLOOPYVERSE(tm)

[Poet Laureate sloopyinca]

Yeah, when a guy who can't even see in the doorway raises his gun and starts popping off shots indiscriminately.

I'm not doing this today. I promised myself I wouldn't.

[dunphy]

you are also wrong on the facts

it wasn't IA, for example

you clearly haven't even READ the report, but you already have an opinion

PREjudgment, ej prejudice
how utterly nonsurprising

must be nice to live in the sloopyverse

[Poet Laureate sloopyinca]

must be nice to live in the sloopyverse

It is, asshole. It is.

I may not be:
riding short term disability,
a big wave surfer,
in a cool ass rock band,
a trainer of world class athletes,
the President of Honduras,
married to Morgan Fairchild
a retarded asshole with a badge, but my life is tits, man. 2 great kids with a natural contempt for those that would try to lord over them with so much bullshit authority, a few wonderful relationships with beautiful, intelligent women, a super job that I am great at and where everyone in my field respects me and a couple of great bartenders that count on me to pay their mortgage.

[dunphy]

troll-o-meter:.0001

sloopyverse means rule of law meanz whatever sloopy says!

cause he says so!

oh, and i never said i was a trainer OF champions. i said i trained WITH champions

hth

[Fist of Etiquette]

Are you actually saying the shooting was justified, or is this a spoofer? I lose track.

[dunphy]

yes it was

http://kold.images.worldnow.co.....bdocs/SWAT justified.pdf

[dunphy]

and note this is justified UNDER THE LAWS AS THEY EXIST

in a perfect world, we would NEVER raid ANY house for drugs, because they wouldn't be illegal

[Fist of Etiquette]

I thought that was what sloopy was saying, that it was ruled justified. That's apparently a fact. Saying that it was justified is an opinion.

Introducing violence in the form of panic fire to an otherwise peaceful house containing a four-year-old isn't something I am prepared to call justified.

[dunphy]

again, sloopy can't even get the basic facts right

because he is so ignorant, he hasn't read the decision, with ACTUAL forensics vs. what is known at the scene, which is limited

he tacitly admits this by claiming it was IA that made the ruling

it wasn't

it was the county attorney

he's wrong, and he won't admit it

[Fist of Etiquette]

Setting aside what is considered permissible by policy before the fact and lawful by LaWall after the fact, are you prepared to say you believe the shooting to be justified? I am curious.

[dunphy]

if you mean justified in the legal sense, which is what the word means in common parlance?

yes. undoubtedly.

if you are asking in the moral sense, i would say no.

but we must require cops to act in accordance with rule of law, NOT my conception of morality or yours.

those are subjective, disparate and not subject to judicial review, etc.

not speaking of THIS case, but imo ANY raid done for MJ growers is imo WRONG, because it shouldn't be illegal to grow or sell

however, that's a MORAL ruling, not a legal one

justification is a statement on "did their procedures follow law and policy?"

not a statement "i think things should be done this way"

those are ENTIRELY different metrics

[Fist of Etiquette]

I meant the latter. I think many laws and legal rulings are unjust, so I only consider justification in terms of right and wrong as I see them. If the policy is not justified, the action cannot be.

[Poet Laureate sloopyinca]

dunphy should have been a gymnast. He seems more concerned with saying it is legal rather than admitting it is morally as fucked up as you can get. hat's why I made sure to FIFY his post to say it was ruled justified.

Because everybody with an ounce of brains knows it is not morally justified.

[dunphy]

i never said it was morally justified.

as i said, i don't believe LOTS of laws are MORALLY JUSTIFIED. in that, they are bad policy that causes more harm than good

however, when i judge people sworn to uphold the law, and i say something is or isn't justified, i make that assessmnet based on the LAW

if you are going to hold cops accountable for breaking the law, and i would hope you do. i do

then, you cannot hold them accountable for FOLLOWING the law, even if you disagree with it.

again, i often have to enforce laws i soundly disagree with. i think many laws in the WODom Violence are far worse, from a practical basis, than the war on drug laws.

but i enforce them because i must.

that doesn't make me a hypocrite.

what would make me a hypocrite was if i VIOLATED those very laws i enforce.

i don't

[dunphy]

and then we are using different meanings of hte word "justified"

iow, a semantical wank

[Poet Laureate sloopyinca]

And ruled by a jury closed-door session of an IA committee of their peers, too.

[dunphy]

um, no. as usual sloopy is wrong on the facts, preferring isntead to live in the sloopyverse

and i doubt he will concede his error

being sloopy means never having to admit you are wrong... evne when you are

here's proof...

"Under the circumstances, and based upon our review of all the available evidence, we have concluded that the use of deadly forces by the SWAT Team members was reasonable and justified under the law. Accordingly, the Pima County Attorney's Office finds no basis to prosecute," according to the ruling on the shooting by Pima County Attorney Barbara LaWall."

it was NOT a closed door IA ruling. you are so fucking ignorant of how this shit works. IA doesn't even rule on this. the DA does.

wrong on point 1

also wrong on point 2. it was an open ruling, published, etc. with full forensic support

http://kold.images.worldnow.co.....bdocs/SWAT justified.pdf

as usual, you are CLEARLY wrong on the facts...

will you admit it?

[Poet Laureate sloopyinca]

I was merey pointing out that it was not a jury that decided their fate.

And yes, I concede that it was a DA who said he would not proceed. I was mistaken in that regard. I just wonder what would have happened if it had actually been put before a jury...even a grand jury. Alas, the DA didn't see fit to do that, which means he is a moral coward as well as an incompetent prosecutor.

I'm not avoiding you either. I'm just really busy this afternoon. So fuck off with that shit.

[dunphy]

thank you. i like intellectual honesty. you haz it, at least in re this.

two points for sloopy!!!

and in the real world, juries don't put cases before the jury if they believe they have no basis in fact

based upon the forensic evidence, statements supporting the warrant affidavit, etc. etc. a RESPONSIBLE MORAL and ETHICAL prosecutor could NOT present the case, because the fact pattern does NOT support a belief that a crime was committed beyond a reasonable doubt

the ONLY ethical thing he could do - was what he did

it's the difference between rule of law and rule of the mob

but again,i appreciate the honesty.

if you disagree with the county attorney's report, that's fine with me.

we can disagree

[sarcasmic]

I've never seen one that wasn't. Not in Maine anyway.

[dunphy]

again sloopy made two false claims

1) that IA made the ruling... FALSE
2) that iwas closed door. FALSE. the ruling was released with full forensic support and was done in conjunction with other agencies such as medical examiner etc.

[Poet Laureate sloopyinca]

Everybody who had access to the investigation is a law enforcement insider.

This is why we need citizen review board where the citizens' identities are 100% anonymous. And they ought to be populated with people who would aggressively go after cops as the DA's go after people they think will advance their career.

Because if these cases made it in front of a jury and had a zealous prosecution, I'd be willing to bet there would be a pretty high rate of prosecution and guilty verdicts.

[dunphy]

yes i am well aware what you want in the sloopyverse.

i want some of the things you want (an end to the WOD, legalization of prostitution, organ sales, an elimination of hate crime laws, etc. etc. etc.) but in the real world, at least fight for what you want.

do something.

regardless of what one thinks of the reasons FOR the guerana raid, it was a valid warrant signed by a judge and prosecutor who BOTH reviewed it.

the RESULT of the guerana raid was awful, but the PROCESS was lawful. it was a classic "awful but lawful" action, tragic but lawful

[Res Publica Americana]

You're fucking shitting me. Jesus fucking Christ.

[dunphy]

waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!

i realize facts might hurt your brain. read the county attorney's report.

[Res Publica Americana]

Are we reading the same report here, or are you seriously this fucking delusional?

[dunphy]

at least i read the report... it's clear

unlike sloopy's ignorant claim (clearly he hadn't read it) that it was the IA that made the decision.

the report offers a clear fact pattern supporting justification.

if there are specific facts you disagree with, what are they?

[Res Publica Americana]

"The SWAT Team had been briefed on the nature of the operation and the fact that the occupants of the homes to be searched were potentially violent and could be armed."

1) Briefed by whom? Deputy Walsh's mom over steroids and cookies? Where's the credibility of the information given as justificational material reinforced?

Where's evidence there was supportable, demonstrable cause that the occupant would be so violent as to justify a rapid entry with a fully armed and armored paramilitary unit equipped with assault rifles and ballistic shielding?

"The SWAT Team members approached the house and knocked on the front door. In both English and Spanish, they announced themselves as police, announced that they had a warrant, and told the occupants to open the door."

I don't recall that. Any video?

"There was no answer. The officers then breached the door and, after a couple of seconds, opened it."

There was no answer to a sudden rap at the door for a short moment, which meant they should just knock the fucking door down, and a few seconds after that, CROWD into a fucking doorway. As if this wasn't God-awfully retarded and unacceptable in any case, wasn't Guerena sleeping?

"At that time, all of the officers were crowded together in the doorway. Officer Iglesias was in front holding a ballistic shield, and the other officers were gathered around him with their weapons drawn."

Ballistic shield? Crowded in doorway with weapons pointed? Crowded? In the doorway? Crowded? In the fucking doorway?

Professionals, or amateurish sacks of bovine shit beefing and pumping up for a run-of-the-mill quasi-drug bust? You decide.

"As soon as they opened the door, all of the officers except Deputy Walsh...", who was busy imagining himself in the role of Jack Matrix in "Commando" butt-fucking the Cuban Army with rocket launchers and Gatling guns in a furor of muscular flexing and bullet-storm madness, "... saw a man later identified as Mr. Guerena coming around a corner at the end of a long entryway directly in front of them."

He woke up, didn't even have time to to the hallway before his door was breached and opened, and saw an armed group in his doorway, all crowded there like colossal fucking idiots.

"As he rounded the corner and came toward them, Mr. Guerena raised a rifle apparently preparing to fire at the officers."

An ex-Marine's exhibiting a defensive reaction of force at a boom at the door, a breach, and the sudden appearance of a small army on his property and on the 'welcome' mat? Absolute justification to murder a man. Go Pima County!

Any of us might have done exactly the same thing.

"Officer Garcia, reasonably fearing for his life and the lives of his fellow officers *utter horseshit*, fired in the direction of Mr. Guerena. His shot produced a muzzle flash. At that time, Officers Iglesias, Shumate, and Horetski believed they and their fellow officers had been fired upon by Mr. Guerena."

A trigger-happy moron, or, at best, a green-as-fuck, inexperienced proto-macho, decided to shoot at Jose, which provoked the equally pathetic, unworthy-of-sanitation-duty members of the shitty team to open fire.

"Officers Iglesias, Shumate, and Horetski then began to fire at Mr. Guerena. At the same time, Officer Iglesias slipped and fell backwards to the ground *being union-spawn and a fragile princess and all, quite likely, and lacking any semblance of "chops" for anything even remotely resembling law enforcement work*, and Officer Garcia put his gun down and pulled Officer Iglesias away from the doorway *where they'd crowded like a bunch of six-year-old kids recreating one of Sylvester Stallone's action scenes from Rambo II*.

Meanwhile, Deputy Walsh thought Officer Iglesias had been hit by gunfire from Mr. Guerena, and he fired at Mr. Guerena believing he was returning his fire. Dozens of rounds of ammunition were fired by the officers. All of this happened rapidly, in only a matter of seconds."

1) I THOUGHT (perhaps even genuinely) that the black kid that was borderline jogging up my front yard with a black phone in his hand was a gangbanger carrying a Glock, so I emptied my magazine into his face and torso. That exempts me completely from judgment and prosecution and fault.

Am I the only one that thinks nobody should give two shits about what he/they THOUGHT when it comes to responsibility for this?

2) I'd return fire if a saw an armed gang at my door (and FELT them) shooting [at] me, and this guy was a seasoned soldier. Did this never occur to anybody?

3) Blindly emptying your weapons into Guerena's general direction took only a few short seconds? Triply disgusting, retarded and unjustifiable.

"Dr. Singh from the Office of the Medical Examiner determined that Mr. Guerena had sustained 22 bullet entry wounds, most of which entered through the front of his body. On that basis, Dr. Singh concluded that, in her opinion, Mr. Guerena had been facing the officers when he was shot."

Yeah, he should have walked over to the front door and opened calmly and moving backwards, with his front facing the direction he wasn't walking in. What the fuck is this shit?

"The gun Mr. Guerena had been holding, an AR-15 semi-automatic assault rifle *which isn't what it is, but we'll call it that because we're full of ox shit and we want to OOOOOOHHHHH the public*, was found next to his body."

Again, totally understandable -- when you're responding to what sounds and feels and looks like an armed intrusion into your home, you should first place your firearm into a safe, lock it, and then walk to the door slowly and with a smile before getting shot in the face. Oh, and wear a tie, you fucking hillbilly.

"A close examination of the rifle revealed that it appeared to have been damaged by being fired upon from such an angle that it must have been pointed towards the officers."

When responding to something like this, EVEN if you're not planning to use force but are just walking over prepared to check out what's happening, disassemble your weapon and hold it down and behind your back, lest the good, nice police officer get frightened and send you to an early grave. Logic 10-fucking-1, anybody?

This corroborated Dr. Singh's conclusion, and statements by the officers, that Mr. Guerena had been facing the officers and raising the rifle in their direction when he was shot."

When being shot, raise your hands instead and hope your assailants' aim is as shitty as their judgment.

"A search of the house revealed other weapons as well--a loaded handgun on a table next to one of the beds and a rifle, similar to the one found next to Mr. Guerena's body, under the mattress in one of the bedrooms."

Which is absolutely, entirely, completely, wholly irrelevant to anything. I keep a gun next to my bed. What's the bet this shithead supports gun control? What the fuck is this doing in the report?

"The AR-15 semi-automatic assault rifle *of the type with a barrel shroud and a scary, ultra-high capacity assault clip that kills black homosexual children every day in America* held by Mr. Guerena had numerous rounds in the magazine and one in the chamber."

Because responding to something like this unarmed, or with an unloaded weapon, is totally logical!!1!11!!2345

"The ammunition in the weapon was capable of penetrating not only the ballistic shield held by the officers, but certain types of body armor as well."

... because only agents of government should possess sufficient means to deal with well-equipped foes.

"However, the weapon had not been fired; its safety was on."

So not only did he not fire, which he would have been justified in doing, his gun still had the safety on when he died, amplifying the SWAT team's fuck-up by orders of magnitude.

"The officers were mistaken in believing that Mr. Guerena fired at them."

... and this carries absolutely no significant consequences whatsoever, of any sort.

"However, when Mr. Guerena raised the AR-15 semi-automatic asault rifle *beware of marijuana-trafficking neo-Confederate militia* in their direction, they needed to take immediate action to stop the deadly threat against them."

... because his gun still had the safety on, nobody but the cops shot, or even applied any force of any sort whatsoever, at all, and a heavily armed and armored paramilitary unit toting high-grade gear NEEDED to react in this manner against a guy dressed in shorts trying to find out what the fuck was going on at his front door. They NEEDED to.

God, my poor cerebellum.

"Under the circumstances *not rly guyz trolololol*, and based upon our review of all the available evidence *that, coincidentally, countermands every conclusion we've come to in this shitty report*, we have concluded that the use of deadly force by the SWAT team members was reasonable *www.dictionary.com? Never heard of it!* and justified under the law *drafted and enacted by unicorns for the sake of unicorns, so that paramilitary assaults on people's homes could be explained away in shitty, half-assed, grade-school-quality reports of this variety*. Accordingly *with episode 7 of the first season of Law & Order: Criminal Intent*, the Pima County Attorney's Office finds no basis to prosecute *because Vincent D`Onofrio wasn't available for consultation*.

"Sincerely, David L. Berkman, Chief Criminal Deputy."

Try another line of work, fuckhead.

-----

So I'll ask you again, Dunphy, are we indeed reading the same report?

[Res Publica Americana]

Had to storm through, but I'm sure you'll understand what I meant in place of the two typos and a few missing speech marks

[dunphy]

yes. in the real world, the county attorney has to make a ruling based on case/constitutional law etc. as apply to UOF

based on that metric, this shooting WAS justified

you can cry about it all you want, but the evidence was pretty convincing that it was justified.

[Poet Laureate sloopyinca]

"... saw a man later identified as Mr. Guerena coming around a corner

I think this is inaccurate. From what I have seen, he was later identified as a piece of government-made swiss cheese.

[Gray Ghost]

read the county attorney's report.

This would be the attorney for the same entity that would have to pay out on a finding that the shooting was unjustified, right? No possible bias there.

[dunphy]

nice evasion

[sarcasmic]

well, except the shooting was justified. but yea

Was their refusal to allow him to be treated as his son watched him lie in a puddle of his own blood also justified?

[Poet Laureate sloopyinca]

Did the guys who murdered him ever get caught?

[dunphy]

again wrong on the facts. you claimed IA closed door ruling

it was not IA. it was the district attorney (county attorney) and the ruling was released openly with full forensic support and references...

http://kold.images.worldnow.co.....bdocs/SWAT justified.pdf

as usual, you are wrong on facts. will you admit it? doubtful

[Warty]

Honestly, this barely seems excessive compared to half the shit Radley writes about. That is an odd sentence to type.

[dunphy]

it most definitely IS excessive imo. contrast with UC Davis (the real story) , seattle pepper spraying or any # of others.

[Warty]

Of course it is, but it barely seems so, compared to, say, any random SWAT raid to serve a search warrant.

[Gojira]

You know what you never see? A stupid raid to execute a warrant over a joint or some other similiarly penny-ante crime, that doesn't find the drugs but uncovers some kind of vast white-slavery child prostitution and murder-for-hire operation going on in the house, but then it turns out the warrant was executed improperly and all the evidence is void.

That'd be interesting.

[dunphy]

i'm not aware of any agency, mine included , that allows the use of swat ... just because

i am the first to claim that in MANY agencies, the rules for using SWAT are too loose

this is something i can agree with you, balko and practically every other reasonoid about

like most issues we agree on (which are the vast majority)

i am also aware of three cops in my own agency who were shot on a warrant, and *if* we had used SWAT it would have been less likely to happen, and at least a dozen warrants where BECAUSE OF SWAT people didn't die that probably would have.

the problem is that it is difficult to prove that X would have happened when it didn't because of police action, whereas when something DOES happen because of police action, it's self obvious

for example, kris kime died when seattle police were ordered NOT to engage a rioting crowd.

if they had engaged the rioting crowd, plenty of people would have cried "police brutality" but kris kime likely wouldn' have been killed by rioters AND of course nobody could have claimed "see, cops saved Kris Kime" because the incident wouldn't have happened in the first place

this applies to everything from response times, to felony stops, etc.

but imo what strongly supports this idea is HOW RARELY cops use force in situations that are spinning out of control even

just personally, in my career, i can see literally dozens of people who were saved from injury or death because of our response, but that will never make the papers since the injuries or deaths did NOT happen

it only makes the papers when it's especially dramatic (river rescue etc.) etc AND the cops make a press release.

[mad libertarian guy]

but imo what strongly supports this idea is HOW RARELY cops use force in situations that are spinning out of control even

just personally, in my career, i can see literally dozens of people who were saved from injury or death because of our response . . .

You're right. They reserve their raids for times when it ISN'T necessary.

Is your argument seriously that police forces don't use SWAT type raids enough, or that more of them would save lives?

Come on, man. I know you have your biases, but seriously.

[dunphy]

no, as usual, it's not a simple dichotomy like you propose.

iow, the SWAT decision must be based on facts known PRIOR to the raid.

iow, process analysis

SOME agency's criteria are too loose.

SOME are too strict (a smaller # imnsho)

regardless, the after effects (result) of many raids where we don't use SWAT show that based on ex-post raid information, that clearly SWAT was justified and should have been if only we had known

that's my point. it's more nuanced than a simple dichotomy suggests

SWAT began to be used in raids in an era where strongly reinforced drug houses were common, and where the crack trade was prevalent, which was extraordinarily violent

the stats show a LOT of cops shot at during drug raids, etc. which is why law enforcement responded with the invention and deployment of SWAT

and like ALL such reactions by govt. , the pendulum swung TOO far such that SWAT is now overutilized

however, it came about because of a strong need, and there is STILL that need and it stil saves lives, both suspect, bystander, and cop WHEN USED PROPERLY
and of course we don't have 20/15 hindsight, so sometimes we realize that we should have used SWAT when we didn't

[T]

So, basically, it comes back to the War on Unapproved Drugs. Again.

Between the first Prohibition and our 50 year long repat, you'd think we had enough evidence it doesn't fucking work and the collateral damage is way too high a price to pay.

Guess not.

[dunphy]

we are 100% in agreement. the WOD should have been ended years ago, if never started in the first place

however, given the WOD, the cops (and the judges and prosecutors) are EXECUTIVE and JUDICIAL branch employees tasked to carry it out (amongst other tasks)

the legislature could end this fucking trainwreck of the WOD TOMORROW

it's their fault

period. full stop

[T]

Nice try, but I'm not buying the Nuremburg defense, dunphy. But we've beat this particular horse to death before, and we ain't changing any minds.

[dunphy]

it's not the nuremberg defense

this is just stupid. i agree with PJ ORourke, etc.

the WOD is stupid, but it is not a fundamental violation of human rights, like slavery, etc.

that's why MLK Gandhi etc. didn't protest it.

it's WRONG, but it is QUALITATIVELY different from stuff like the nazis did

it's a stupid argument, you can repeat ad nauseum and it doesn't get any better

if it were TRULY as bad, then you would be remiss in paying taxes to support it.

[Tim]

$2,000 an hour chopper used to seize $200 worth of pot. Great.

[Poet Laureate sloopyinca]

You say that, but that pot had a street value of 7 dead teenagers.

[dunphy]

PJ Orourke makes light of this same govt. inefficiency.

granted, cops spend 100,000's to find the killer of $50 prostitutes, and we correctly don't view that as a waste of money

the problem is the drug war in general.

[Fist of Etiquette]

Except you don't actually think the prostitutes' lives are worth $50, so that's different.

[Fist of Etiquette]

Let's try that again:

Except you don't actually think the prostitutes' lives are only worth $50, so that's different.

(Other phrasing could be taken differently.)

[dunphy]

many people think they are worth less than that, hence the term "misdemeanor homicide"

i of course disagree. they have sacred worth, since they are human beings

and fwiw, prostitution should be legal

[Local Wit]

Yeah, they should have used the $200 chopper.

[Dylboz]

Soon, they will. Drones, heck, Air Hogs with web cams would do.

[R C Dean]

On the Guerena shoot, a couple of questions:

(1) I seem to recall helmet-cam video from some of the cops further back, and that video showed that the cop who initiated the shooting was in kind of a funny place to see what was really going on.

(2) I also don't recall any helmet-cam video from any cops right up front, that might give a view of Guerena actually did to "provoke" the shooting. Why not?

(3) If the ruling was based on the testimony of the cops on the scene, you'll pardon me if I remain skeptical of its validity without video to support their claims of exactly what Guerena did to justify being gunned down.

And what about that delay in treatment, anyway? Did anybody get a paid vacation for that?

[dunphy]

the ruling was based on a # of factors, to include forensic evidence.

for example, the bullet damage to guerana's gun actually confirmed the cops' account that it was pointed AT THEM based on the shape of the bullet gouge

try reading the reports, etc.

[Loather of Cops and Feds]

Dunphy's defense of the Pima SWAT shooting makes me hope for a mistaken raid on the Dunphy household, with a SWAT member mistaking Mrs. Dunphy for a drug crazed brown person. Then he can claim "even though it was morally unjustified, it was a good shoot, they feared for their lives, and so on..."

Remember 1 in 20 Florida cops should be Walmart greeters, or in jail. And that is only the ones who have been caught.

[dunphy]

it's not MY defense, it's the defense of the county prosecutor based on all the evidence.

lots of shit is imo morally unjustified.

imo, a defense attorney defending a client he knows is guilty and getting him found not guilty through lawyer tricks aint moral either in the grand sense.

but i can still respect the defense attorney who does it, because while the ACT is not moral, it is part of the framework of rule of law.

any law that imo ultimately does more harm than good as the war on MJ certainly does ***IMO*** is immoral. that's a simple metric. laws are not supposed to harm society

[Loather of Cops and Feds]

The primary deficit in cop morality is empathy. They substitute "procedures were followed".

May they all be judged someday by those same "metrics".

[dunphy]

strongly disagree. i've seen some amazing empathy in cops

however, when judging the LEGAL correctness of UOF, cops are subject to legal guidelines, not empathy guidelines, JUST LIKE ANYBODY else.

[Big Chief Moon-Unit]

Greetings, brave earthling who does not fall for the wily tricks of the other terrestrials.

Indeed you are correct. Soon, my spaceship shall come for you and all like-minded thinkers.

Both of you will be spared from the coming earth-destruction as predicted by the Mayans in 2012 from a worldwide, fatal Tourette's pandemic.

In the meantime, though, you must stop posting comments and lie low, lest the Others find you. Remember, Jupiter has spies everywhere.

[Big Chief Moon-Unit]

The obviously inferior earthling commenting system has prevented my comment from appearing where it was intended - as a reply to the wise fellow thinker with the city-state hangup....