Criminals Disguised as Cops Raid Illegal Gaming Establishment
Prohibition — it's endlessly useful for criminals.
According to a Houston CBS affiliate, five men pretending to be cops raided an illegal gaming parlor and got away with thousands of dollars. Now actual Houston police are searching for the thieves, who have stolen $20,000 from illegal gambling houses in the last week.
Some police are theorizing that they might have been members of the notorious Zetas, the Mexican drug cartels.
Look closely and you can see 5-men wearing badges and raid jackets and they're all carrying weapons; one is even carrying an assault rifle.
But there's a problem, these men are not officers, they're suspects. And now real investigators are going undercover trying to find them.
One undercover officer says, "These guys are organized. It looks like they're trained. Each of them have a role to play. One of them takes the security guard; one of them takes the door. The other two escort the customers out of the business. You know it's something similar to a raid HPD would do."
Check out the security video. It's so eerily low-key, especially if they're actually Zetas.
This not uncommon tactic of criminals impersonating police, as well as as undercover police who don't seem to comprehend that to bystanders and suspects they often just resemble criminals, is making the dangers of the drug war and police militarization much worse. There are injuries and body counts to prove it.
It happened in the 2010 beating of Pittsburgh teen Jordan Miles, it happened in the 2010 killing of Georgia pastor Jonathan Ayers, and most recently, it seems to have happened with the shooting of John Collado in Brooklyn this summer. By all accounts, none of those men had reason to know or trust the men screaming orders at them — or in Collado's case, struggling with Collado's weed dealing neighbor — and yet they were expected to risk their lives by assuming that armed, shouting men are telling the truth about their identities. Making citizens obligated to do that is quite simply a violation of their right to self defense. Cops should be the ones endangering their lives to make sure people can trust that they really are members of law enforcement.
Reason on the militarization of police.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
This sentence is confusing, and not just because of the typo. Assuming the guys doing the raid are cops would be the less risky proposition, no? Or are you saying assuming criminals are cops is risky because they might just decide to kill you anyway? Since we know police don't exactly have a stellar record on that anyway. It seems unsafe to question police raids because they're so prone to violence nowadays. Please clarify!
I think that is referring to other incidents where the cop was undercover/plainclothes and shot someone.
police have a great record on it
but of course you don't look at stats.
do you have any idea what percentage of drug raids result in cops killing anybody (justified or not?)
hint: tiny percent
The mere fact that they are using a "raid" instead of knocking on the door, like a government employee should means, they have a poor record.
no, SWAT raids should be used... sometimes. balko would agree i bet.
the issue is the criteria used for WHEN they should be used
imo, as with balko et al, SWAT is OVERused. iow, used in situations often where they should NOT be used
but there most definitely is use for SWAT and used properly, they save lives and protect everybody
my sgt. former SWAT sniper took out a guy on a rooftop with a rifle taking potshots at US
without him there, people would have likely died and we couldn't have rescued anybody because the sniper had position on us
shit happens all the time. would never make the pages of reason
SWAT is not the problem. overuse of SWAT and/or poorly trained SWAT is
""SWAT is not the problem. overuse of SWAT and/or poorly trained SWAT is""
Agreed. But how do we roll back the tide? You can't expect LEOs or tough on crime politicians to do it.
I often mention the citizenry gets the government they deserve.
no, SWAT raids should be used... sometimes. balko would agree i bet.
Just because Balko agrees, and I'd rather he speak for himself on the matter, doesn't mean that it's still not up for debate. He's not the king of civil libertarians, dipshit.
"... do you have any idea what percentage of drug raids result in cops killing anybody (justified or not?)"
No, but I know it's more than zero, and that's unacceptable.
He says "tiny percent". The problem is, it's a tiny percent of a fucking huge #. Which in turn makes it a fucking huge number, regardless of what % of the time it happens.
Cops should be the ones endangering their lives to make sure people can trust that they really are members of law enforcement
Cops should do a lot of things, including not treating the public like an enemy population. Doesn't look like that's going to happen any time soon.
cops don't treat the public like an enemy population
more bigozoid assertions w/o evidence
if cops treated the public like an enemy population, the polls would support that. the public would express mass distruct, dislike, disrespect of the police
cops routinely poll FAR ahead of both attorneys and journalists i might add
"cops don't treat the public like an enemy population"
They do in my neighborhood, assdouche.
Wake me up when you quit with the cop apologist crap.
They do in my neighborhood, assdouche.
Mine too.
ah yes. you are of course the grand arbiter of public opinion in your neighborhood. nice to know
I am, asshole, like it or not.
Who the fuck said anything about public opinion? I'm talking about how the police act. They block a road going into your neighborhood, if you get out of your car to ask them why, they unsnap and start yelling at you. I've seen a guy frisked for not looking away from a cop when he stared at him, in the parking lot of the local CVS.
Nice that you keep hiding behind those fucking surveys though. Cause we all know that the predominate public opinion is always reflective of reality.
again, you are claiming that this is your opinion. i have zero doubt YOU think cops are an occupying army.
and im not saying the polls reflect the "reality". i am saying they reflect the reality of people's OPINIONS about cops
whether or not cops are an "invading army' is based on subjective apprehension of various facts, and is influenced by media, background, and all sorts of stuff
the polls do not prove what REALITY is vis a vis what is happening
the prove what the PUBLIC PERCEIVES as reality ... their opinion of cops
but imo (see, i have one too), if cops DID treat people as an invading army, people would respond with dislike/distrust of the police
considering the reality of their opinion is other than that, the burden is on you to support the ivnading army thang
you haven't
and of course you KNOW the cop frisked the guy merely for not looking away? no, you don't
you ASSUME
and of course you KNOW the cop frisked the guy merely for not looking away? no, you don't
you ASSUME
He wasn't on a call. He put a fucking CVS bag in his car.
And the unsnapping and yelling at me rather then telling me why they had blocked access to my home? Face it, those are not the actions of a public servant. They are however, the actions of those treating the general public like enemies. Is it any wonder we respond in kind?
the prove what the PUBLIC PERCEIVES as reality ... their opinion of cops
The public also used to perceive that the world is flat. It didn't necessarily make it so.
but imo (see, i have one too), if cops DID treat people as an invading army, people would respond with dislike/distrust of the police
I want to see a survey with one question: When a cop pulls in behind you while driving, do you feel...
a. Happy
b. Nervous
Someone posted an even better one here during one of these conversations. It went something like:
"If you pass a car full of teenage males wearing obvious gang affiliations, are you worried that they will flip an illegal u-turn and chase you down to fuck with you? No? Well how about when you pass a cop?"
^^THIS^^
My neighborhood is uppity whitebread. Punkasses in their cars still crawl past people chilling on their property like we don't own the place. Fuck them.
w3rd to your mother, vanilla ice!
Ditto mine...every place I've ever lived for that matter.
Herpes polls far ahead of AIDs and gonorrhea. Your point is?
Using SWAT raids to serve minor warrants is treating the populace as an enemy. Sorry, dunphy, but it is. You can shill all you want and it will never change that fact.
and i 100% agree that WHEN swat is misused, that IS the case.
and i have consistently fought against that, and in fact, argued against it in my dept. which subsequently changed the policy
we agree
but the VAST majority of cop encounters with noncops have nothing to do with SWAT, the vast majority of peopel do not view the cops as an invading army
but we both agree that in the case of overuse of SWAT (not all swat raids, but some), this is the functional result
note ime, SWAT is primarily overused due to money$$$ factors, not a desire to oppress, but the RESULT can and sometimes is oppression
It's not just the misuse of SWAT that pisses people off. It's shit like when cops shoot at people for no reason and aren't even charged with any crime, let alone attempted murder.
"if cops treated the public like an enemy population, the polls would support that. the public would express mass distruct (sic), dislike, disrespect of the police"
Hey dunphy, get on a plane to Minneapolis, take a taxi to the Northside and then go door to door in your little cop suit taking down the answers of survey respondents. You can post the results on YouTube.
and the northside of minneapolis is representative of the nation at large in what respect?
I'll take police brutality for $500, Alex.
Wow, that is some high speed goalpost-moving. We might have a record!
no, it's not. the question was about THE PUBLIC
i am well aware in some neighborhoods, this opinion may even be the prevailing one
but that aint THE PUBLIC
Monkeys ain't human.
""cops don't treat the public like an enemy population""
Some cops do. Many cops don't think they are civilians. They refer to the people they rule over as civilians. That creates a us/them divide. Many cops think they are fighting the war on drugs, war on crime, ect. In war you fight the enemy.
In my city, NYC, many cops are suburbians that think NYC residents are scum and will treat them accordingly claiming that it doesn't matter because the system will put them back on the street.
""It's almost like you have no emotion with it, that they attach the bodies to it, they're going to be out of jail tomorrow anyway; nothing is going to happen to them anyway," Anderson responded."
Says a cop that was planting drugs on people.
http://rt.com/usa/news/nypd-in.....varez-907/
Not that all cops think that way, but the ones that do make the badge look bad, so it's up to the good cops to police the bad ones. That doesn't really happen in NYC. It's a gang/wiseguy mentality here where ratting out your fellow officer is a no no.
Read the comments on police one. The commenters are fine with treating non-cops like an occupied populace.
Dunphy: Police One is not representative of cops.*
*and for the record, one must be a cop to post comments there.
You sure this wasn't police? I would swear one of those guys looked like Vic Mackey.
This wasn't an Armenian money train, dude. The Strike Team doesn't do small time shit.
Can't be the police, they are too skinny.
WIN
Just one case like this should be sufficient to exonerate all of the people in prison for shooting at cops who broke into their houses in the middle of the night. There is no reason to believe that the people breaking down your door and yelling "police, search warrant" are not just criminals intent on robbing or killing you and the proof is right here.
Hey, a man can dream.
there are lots of reasons.
and agencies should of course use GOOD procedure, and many don't
for example ALL warrants should have at least one fully marked police cruiser present at the raid, so people can look out the window and see "cops"
i'm not aware of any fake raids by cop impersonators that had a fully marked cruiser.
and of course plenty of the people in prison for shooting at cops had full intent, and admitted same, for shooting cops
dynamic swat raids are overused, should be done with tighter scrutiny and better procedures, but you are influenced by anecdotes of "raids gone wrong" without acknolwedgment the vast vast majority of raids "go right"
it's the same disease that MSM creates vis a vis school shootings.
kids are far safer in schools than outside them, and school shootings kill fewer kids than school sports.
but idiots see the stories and assume it's an epidemic
you do the same thing with police raids
the stats are that cops use SWAT raids about 40-50k times per year
that's an actual stat, not rhetoric (and imo far too many)
what %age of those result in shootings, let alone QUESTIONABLE ones?
if you don't have an answer, maybe some research might be in order before you form an opinion
Even better, knock on the door, wait until the citizen opens the door and be let in. If the answer to your knock is a shotgun blast, then it is time to call SWAT.
and the vast majority of raids are not no-knock
how many raids you been on?
i've been on at least 3 dozen. less than 20% resulted in door breach
and the vast majority of raids are not no-knock
Despite the flimsy legal difference, there is no substancial difference between a no knock and 3 knocks followed in 15 seconds by a breach.
and i said again... NO BREACH whether post knock or not
and i said again... NO BREACH whether post knock or not
No, you said 20%.
yes. the majority. sure, some were breach. sometimes, breach is necessary and justified.
again, we both agree breach is used TOO often, as is SWAT
i am saying it is used less often than many suspect
The point is that you said "the vast majority of raids are not no-knock", which is true, but then you extrapolate all supposed "knock and announce" raids to the stats of your PD. I hate to break it to you, but the majority of raids done in Texas are the kind where you get 3 knocks followed in 15 seconds by a breach. And I don't think Texas is alone in that respect. Shit, I don't think the feds are representative of your 20% number either.
Cops get off on dynamic entry raids. If safety for all was their main concern, they'd wait until the subject of their investigation was outside his house and in his car to make an arrest as opposed to entering a house they have no idea what's going on in.
i'm not aware of any fake raids by cop impersonators that had a fully marked cruiser.
So you'd agree that if there isn't one then the person is fully within their rights to open fire?
no, and i suggest if you came to that conclusion you must reacquiant yourself with the concept of logical fallacy
Why the fuck not?
no
Why the fuck not?
it's not a deductively valid conclusion
do i need to break down analytical reasoning for you? i doubt it. you are being purposefully obtuse
i gave examples where procedures can be improved (my agency REQUIRES marked cruisers btw)...
it does not follow that when procedures are suboptimal, that in all cases, shooting at the cops is justified.
that excludes a large middle and is illogical
So if police impersonators break in my door, I'm just supposed to submit to them? Cause you can't have it both ways. Either masks and all black means it's cops or it means it's intruders. Without the flashing lights on a cruiser, how can you say I'm not within my rights?
Just because? It's just because, isn't it? Cause there isn't anything else left.
Also, bear in mind that the story in this article happened near where I fucking live, so it's not exactly a flippant hypothetical.
i gave examples where procedures can be improved (my agency REQUIRES marked cruisers btw)...
If the north side of Minneapolis is not THE PUBLIC, then your agency is not THE POLICE. Shit goes both ways, doesn't it?
There are 112,611,029 household in the US according to the Census bearau. That means that about 4.4% of households are raided every year. In five years that would mean if the cops only hit each house once that would be about 22% of the households in America if I got my math right and I"m not saying I did.
Doh! Why didn't I think of that?
Cops should be the ones endangering their lives to make sure people can trust that they really are members of law enforcement.
Good one, Lucy.
Haven't you heard? OFFICER SAFETY is job numero uno. Any reduction in actual crime or harm is purely incidental.
officer safety does not take precedence over the constitution or respect for people's rights.
BULLSHIT
"I had to shoot him he ________"
Fill in the blank.
was holding a cell phone.
reached to scratch his balls.
was holding a key.
looked at me wrong.
didn't fluff me when I gave him an official order.
trollometer: .01
Only in theory.
substantially in fact. i see it all the time.
my best friend was shot and killed, and three of my coworkers shot in different scenarios .
in several, IF they had used a higher level of force, they would not be dead
but they were limited by the constitution
that's a risk cops take all the fucking time
Bullshit:
http://reason.com/blog/2011/12.....nt_2684938
EAP is right: dunphy's friend was not shot.
I don't get it. Was that the wrong link? Cause it's just a link to another comment on this page which doesn't have anything to do with it.
""but they were limited by the constitution"'
State or fed? Because your state seems much more respectful of people's rights than many other states.
The cops in my city have the arrest them all and let the courts sort it out mentality.
officer safety does not take precedence over the constitution or respect for people's rights.
See, this kind of stuff is why I think you're not actually a cop. And they'd say the same at police one if you posted it there.
i've had DEFENSE attorneys tell me (off the record) that they would expect us to pat frisk EVEN WHEN it might not be justified constitutionally if we thought there were dangers. iow, better to get ti thrown out in court than be dead.
im not saying that cops should sit there and second guess themselves ad nauseum into getting themselves hurt out of fear to act
i am saying that i respect the constitution and i respect that it means i have to take certain risks.
we all do
it also means tons of guilty as fuck people can get away with crime. again, that's the price we pay for freedom
most cops i know respect that.
i don't think police one reflects average cops, any more than the bigorati cop haters that predominate reason represent the average libertarian.
the extremists rise in internet blogs. it's been true for pretty much the entire existence of blogs and the intertoobz.
god knows it was true back in the usenet days
Apparently in Dunphy's mind, Dunphy's anecdotes=data, everyone else's anecdotes=THAT'S JUST YOUR COP-HATING OPINION!!!!!!!!
If we say "except in Dunphy's PD" before every comment, he wouldn't have a leg to stand on.
"i've had DEFENSE attorneys tell me (off the record)"
^^Unverifiable appeal to authority^^
not an appeal to authority.
an example
just like others give examples (e.g. coeus) about what they see
i'm not saying it's true because defense attorney X says it
that would be an appeal to authority
iow, analytical reasoning fail
Not all appeals to authority are fallacies. He said it was an unverifiable appeal to authority, not a fallacious appeal to authority.
i am saying that i respect the constitution and i respect that it means i have to take certain risks.
we all do
That's a pretty big net you're casting. Especially in light of all the stories posted here that contradict it.
What a great scheme.
City awards $1 million settlement after faulty drug raid
The Minneapolis City Council has awarded a $1 million settlement to a woman who had the flesh burned off her calves after city police threw flash bang grenades in her boyfriend's apartment during a botched drug raid.
Rickia Russell suffered third-degree burns to her legs on Valentine's Day weekend 2010 while she was stretched out in front of the couch at her boyfriend's south Minneapolis apartment, according to a federal lawsuit she filed last December.
Eighteen officers were executing a search warrant of the apartment on Sanders Drive based on a tip from a confidential informant. Officer Daniel Loe told them it was a "no-knock" warrant, without announcing why they were there or who they were looking for, the complaint said.
The officers broke down the door, tossed in the grenades and rushed the apartment. Officers handcuffed a screaming Russell as flames from the grenade seared flesh from her calves. Amid Russell's screams, the officers kept her handcuffed as they put out the fire, the complaint from her lawyer, Robert Bennett, stated.
Police didn't find drugs or the man they were looking for.
http://www.startribune.com/local/135343023.html
"Minneapolis Police execute an average of 275 search warrants a year, and each one of them is a potentially dangerous situation. Their job is to execute these warrants while minimizing danger to officers and to those present where a warrant is being served. What happened in this case was an accident. It's very unfortunate that Ms. Russell suffered serious injuries, however, accidents like this are rare."
Ya wanna make an omlette, ya gotta burn a few legs.
imo, NO search warrant should be based on a "tip" from an anonymous informant
and in 20 yrs of writing warrants, i've never seen such a warrant authorized MERELY based on that.
the tip is usually what leads cops to conduct an investigation that DOES lead ot PC but a mere tip is not PC, generally speaking
generally speaking, considering a man's home is his castle, a warrant to enter a home should be based on very solid PC and unfortunately, in MANY cases, judges are too lenient in their signing of warrants
this is a systemic problem imo
Color me Nostradamus if some of these guys turn out to be forces.
I think it's important to mention on this thread that at least one court has ruled a citizen doesn't have the right to fight back against unlawful police actions. Therefore making it almost impossible to defend yourself against fake cops. Defend yourself from what you think is unlawful or a fake cop and you're more likely to go to prison than not.
Shhh. You're disrupting dunphy's narrative that officer saftey isn't more important than the people they're supposed to protect.
Except in dunphy's PD.
No joke, Washington state is far more serious about people's rights than most other states. That's to their benefit, and why dunphy's experiences don't always equate to our own.
Just sayin.
I meant to say to their credit, not to their benefit.
Yet they still manage to shoot people in seatle like there's a fucking quota.
The difference is when we give anecdotes, he tells we are wrong, based on his PD. We don't tell him he's lying about his PD.
My cops (NYPD) for example. They have been making the headlines in the last couple of months.
A few years ago my dad was driving down I-40 when an unmarked car with only a light on the dashboard tried to pull him over. My dad did the right thing by pulling over at a busy truck stop at the next exit. Turned out to be a real cop that was very upset that my dad didn't pull over right away. The cops was saying shit like, your lucky I don't kick your ass. The cop was more pissed off that my dad didn't submit to the flashing light than protecting himself from what appeared to be a fake cop. My dad thought the cop was fake because 1. there was a fake cop pulling people over on that stretch of I-40. 2. No lights in the grill of the car, only on the dashboard which fit the description of the fake cop.
The asshole cop thought obedience was more important then safety.
You don't know the reason your father was being pulled over. Maybe he was leaking gas?
Don't ASSUME a cop if FAKE.
hth
How do we know it's not just a group of cops free lancing on their day off? They have the training and the equipment, after all...
And some people actually criticized Jose Guerena for drawing a weapon when a group of armed men showed up at his house.
And when Dunphy gets to the 9th Circle of Hell, I hope the demon ramming the poker up his ass is named Guerena.
as well as as undercover police who don't seem to comprehend that to bystanders and suspects they often just resemble criminals,
I've had this kind of encounter, Costa Mesa PD. I was very close to getting a face plant on the pavement for being uncooperative because I didn't immediately allow two plainclothes (who looked like typical 20 somethings) to lead me towards an unlit side of a convenience store. They seemed baffled that I "resisted", while at the same time admitting (once I gave in) that "we are aware of how we look" and "sometimes badges go missing". And even after the whole thing was cleared up and I was free to go, they still couldn't resist getting in a bunch of barbs about "resisting" ("we do this a lot, and probably only 2 or 3 out of a thousand react the way you did").
So there you go criminals, grab a security guards badge, and 997 out of a thousand are yours for the picking.
thanks
So, how does one legally defend his home against invaders dressed as police?
So...criminals dressed up like cops and robbed some other criminals. From this we conclude...that legitimate law enforcement is actually illegitimate.
Criminals sell fake Rolexes. People are fooled. All Rolexes are bad.
Steigerwald becomes Reason's least credible writer. KMW breathes sigh of relief.
Here's another story from the same media outlet, and the title I use is the one they use: West Memphis police to get semi-automatic rifles
Now the money quote from the story Lucy linked: Look closely and you can see 5-men wearing badges and raid jackets and they're all carrying weapons; one is even carrying an assault rifle. [emphasis mine]
Cops get to get semiautomatic rifles.
Criminals carrying assault rifles.
Don't we have a resident cop apologist on here that says this kind of double-standard in reporting doesn't exist? Well I sure hope he comes on here and admits he's wrong, like he always demands other people do when they are proven incorrect.
And before he claims otherwise, here's a link to the story from a few days ago where he claimed we just have selection bias: dunphy, as usual, is full of shit.
his money quote:
dunphy|12.7.11 @ 3:15PM|#|show direct|ignore
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
[emphasis mine]
Care to admit you are wrong, dunphy? If I can do it, surely you can.