Unnecessary SWAT Raid Ended in the Death of an Albuquerque Teen
This was an attempted arrest of a man wanted for questioning and parole violations, not a hostage situation.

Law enforcement in New Mexico is examining how a teenage boy wound up dead from smoke inhalation following an Albuquerque SWAT raid to catch a man wanted for parole violations and questioning.
On July 7, police converged on a home in southeast Albuquerque to arrest 27-year-old Qiaunt Kelley on a warrant for parole violations. The home was not Kelley's. When police arrived at the home, they found him outside with Brett Rosenau, 15. Kelley, rather than surrendering to police, fled into the home and barricaded himself in. Rosenau followed him in, according to the Albuquerque Police Department's public report.
In the ensuing standoff, the SWAT team deployed drones and sent in robots to "activate powder irritants inside the home to get the individuals to exit." Later they used flash-bang grenades (or, "a noise flash diversionary device," as they describe it), and that didn't get Kelley out of the house either.
Then the house caught fire, and the reasons why are not yet clear, though the flash-bang grenades or the chemical irritants could have played a role. According to witnesses, the house burned for 40 minutes before police finally entered and found Rosenau's body. A dog also died, and Kelley suffered burn injuries. The home is a total loss. A preliminary autopsy determined that Rosenau died of smoke inhalation.
That a teen died as a result of a SWAT raid on a home where the target didn't even live has inspired anger and local protests. Complicating matters further, the police department got the facts wrong when they were explaining why they had come to arrest Kelley. Police Chief Harold Medina said that Kelley was wanted on a federal warrant for probation violations after serving time for a previous armed carjacking. But that turned out to be untrue. Source New Mexico discovered that there was no felony warrant for Kelley's arrest. The claim ended up in several news reports.
There was, indeed, a local warrant for parole violations, which is not a felony. Police say Kelley is also a "person of interest" in several violent crimes, including a shooting death in June. With his history, it's not unreasonable for the police to have wanted to detain and interrogate Kelley. When they found him, they even went and got a warrant before attempting to enter the house.
But the Albuquerque police also seem to be a bit surprised that flash-bang grenades could have potentially led to such destructive consequences. Medina noted that there have been stories of their devices causing fires elsewhere, but it hadn't happened in Albuquerque.
There have been a number of terrible incidents and injuries caused by the use of these grenades. Toddlers have been burned. Completely innocent people have been injured in wrong-door SWAT raids from these devices. They are dangerous.
And so the question is not (at least at this point) whether the police should have been attempting to take Kelley into custody but how they went about it and whether there was any legitimate reason to need to use what turned out to be deadly methods to flush Kelley out.
It would seem that Medina and Mayor Tim Keller are at least aware of the reason for the anger. "If any of our actions inadvertently contributed to his death, we will take steps to ensure this never happens again," Medina said. "I've asked our Victim's Services Unit to work with the family and provide them support during this painful time."
Ah, but do the rest of the police agree? Unfortunately, the answer to that question is much less clear. When Source New Mexico published and tweeted out its piece showing how the police were mistaken when they claimed Kelley had a federal warrant for his arrest, this was the response from the Albuquerque Police Department's Public Information Officer:
He was a fugitive. Period. And wanted for questioning for three violent crimes, including murder. Are police supposed to let his warrant slide and hope there isn't another carjacking, shooting or murder in the meantime?
— APD Breaking News (@APD_PIO) July 13, 2022
This is an example of a very bad policing mindset that needs to be rejected. It's an absurd false choice to argue that the only options here were: one, engage in an intense SWAT raid that left an innocent teenager dead; or two, just walk away and let Kelley go.
As people responding to the tweets have noted, the choice that the police made also resulted in the loss of a blameless teen. The police here absolutely failed in their duty to protect public safety. If the police keep telling us that, in order to enforce the law, we have to accept violent confrontations that leave innocents dead and not even question the tactics, is there any wonder why some people continue to reject them even when crime rises? You can't keep injuring and killing innocent people and destroying their property and then turn around and insist you're keeping them safe and expect to be treated seriously.
"The community is traumatized," Barron Jones, senior policy strategist for the American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico, told Source New Mexico. "A family lost their home. A family is displaced. A young child who barely started living lost their life, which is a horrible tragedy, and there is a further erosion of trust between the community and APD."
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
15 yo was probably a future insurrectionist
I actually have made $18k within a calendar month via working easy jobs from a laptop. As I had lost my last business, I was so upset and thank God I searched this simple job (vsg-08) achieving this I’m ready to achieve thousand of dollars just from my home. All of you can certainly join this best job and could collect extra money on-line visiting this site.
>>>>>>>>>> http://getjobs49.tk
This is an example of a very bad policing mindset that needs to be rejected. It’s an absurd false choice to argue that the only options here were: one, engage in an intense SWAT raid that left an innocent teenager dead; or two, just walk away and let Kelley go.
I 100% agree with you on this one.
+1
Yeah, wanted for “Parole violations and questioning.”
There’s nothing in that description that tells me immediate arrest using all available force is necessary.
Yeah. Unless the other guy in the house was made a hostage, I think this is a good time for deescalation.
I’m open to more details on it, but even if it was a hostage situation, killing the hostage to save the hostage doesn’t seem like a great deal.
I’m open to more details on it,
This, too, of course. Reason of late hasn’t been particularly forthcoming with the parts of their stories that don’t support the writer’s opinion.
But it wasn’t a raid until he went inside the house and barricaded himself. Detectives tried to arrest him outside, then two hours later, they got a warrant and then the Swat team showed up
Also apparently the dead kid left the house, then went back in
They didn’t use the tear gas until 4 hours into the standoff
The police were actually relatively restrained in this case. They didn’t shoot. They tried to arrest him outside. They tried waiting. They got a warrant.
So post a single cop car outside the house and simply wait for however long it takes for him to come back out. There is no exigent circumstances that require smashing your way into the house. Even if you DID decide to go into the house and arrest people, why not go into the house and arrest people? Break down the door or something and march inside with people. There’s no need for grenades. There’s no requirement that the cops use “equal” or “proportional” force, but there ought to be a requirement that they only use the minimum force required to achieve the necessary goals. An arrest warrant is not a declaration of war, nor an unlimited license for public mayhem.
But what if he had a gun?
Being a police officer means you often need to go into situations where people may attack you. That’s your job. It’s what society pays you to do.
“Being a police officer means you often need to go into situations where people may attack you. That’s your job. It’s what society pays you to do.”
I think Ulvade showed us that that’s not true.
It was still their job. At Ulvade, they just didn’t do it.
Both of your ideas are asinine, and it’s because several editors and writers at Reason share your refusal to learn actual police training or listen to actual police officers that we can’t have any real discussion. The first, posting a single cop car outside the house, is a terrible idea. It’s completely insufficient to cover the house, and shows you don’t understand what a fugitive is willing to put up with to not go to prison. Would it surprise you to find out he could easily just sit there for two months if he thought going outside would get him arrested? If we upgraded to two or three police cars outside, which is a decent number to lock down an address, that’s two or three officers tied up locking down one house for hours or days on end.
The second idea? That’s how people get shot. Hopefully, just the criminal gets shot, but moving in on a barricaded subject the way you are describing will, not can but will, increase shootings by police officers. What they attempted to do was deploy less lethal measures to force him out-CS gas sucks, but it won’t kill you. Flashbangs are dangerous, but a far cry from fragmentation grenades.
Lastly, there are several elements of the case Scott ignores, which do actually change the dynamics. Kelley had been convicted of a violent felony and was a person of interest in several others. Meaning the police know he’s capable of violence and suspect he is armed. He’s being arrested for a parole violation, which means he can probably expect several years of prison. He ran inside the house, making this a textbook barricaded subject. The police locked down the house, obtained a search warrant, and called in SWAT-arresting barricaded subjects is literally one of the primary functions of a SWAT team.
You have to remember this is Reason, the Police are automatically wrong no matter what they do.
Well, I guess by the “felony murder” rule, Qiaunt Kelley should be charged with murder, because if it wasn’t for his parole violations, the police wouldn’t have showed up and the kid wouldn’t have died. Is that how it works?
Sadly, yes. This is another example of why the ‘felony murder’ rule should be abolished.
Well, it’s not so much the parole violations as the barricading himself inside the house with the guy. At that point does Kelley hold some blame? I’m more mixed on that question.
Like, it’s not Murder 1, but is it Reckless Endangerment? Eh, maybe. I’d still side more with the defendant on that one, but it’s important to state the facts correctly.
Hiding from the cops is now reckless endangerment? Surely, the guy deserved to be arrested, but assigning the consequences of the police’s actions to the criminal is ridiculous. Felony murder is supposed to be for putting the getaway driver in the clink for a murder his accomplices commit, not a 007-esque license-to-kill for the cops.
I think there was a case recently where the cops tried to pin a felony-murder charge on someone when it was a cop that ran over another cop with his police cruiser. I *think* that ended up getting kicked by a court.
No that’s not how it works. No felony in progress. If there was a felony in progress, then he could and should be charged for any deaths.
The house is on fire. Get out. Seems there should be some sort of award for this stupid behavior.
Woo, started to get saucy in my response for a second there. Caught myself, haha.
House fires are complicated things to be in, ya little scamp. I’m sure that young kid would have loved to have get out of the smoke-y that snuffed his lungs and life! Out of the takes you could have had, ya chose a dumb one.
Sure may not be the nicest thing to say and sure the cops are being stupid thugs. But unless he’s a hostage, 1 don’t go in and 2. Get out. I didn’t read the entire article so I might be really wrong. But if he is a hostage, yes, all parties are responsible.
And even if he was not a hostage, everyone shared some blame.
Stay in and die of smoke inhalation, go outside and get shot. Tough choice.
https://twitter.com/DarrenJBeattie/status/1547396003690577921?t=4FlcFzAoj5QUO393boDW5Q&s=19
THREAD
1/x The New York Times puff piece on Ray Epps is hugely important.
Ray Epps, the only person caught on repeatedly directing people into the Capitol is the only January 6 rioter the New York Times has written a puff piece for
2/x They know Epps is the smoking gun.
And this likely is the beginning of a monumental damage control campaign
To get acquainted with Epps, watch the video compilation: again, this is the ONE Jan 6 rioter the New York Times has managed to write a puff piece for
Let’s turn to the Times piece, and skip straight to the buried lede.
Here we see reference to a text message Epps sent to his nephew describing how he “orchestrated movements of people” to the Capitol after Trump’s speech
Will this text soon become a matter of public record? What exactly is his phrasing? Will other Ray Epps communications soon come out that will further clarify this sudden need for aggressive damage control?
Also: The entire NYT piece contains no explicit denial by Epps of association with military intelligence, DHS, JTTF, or any cutouts or intermediaries. We have references to “lies” and Epps’ wish that “the truth come out,” in addition to denial of association with law enforcement
I wonder if @alanfeuer could clarify for the record: did he ask Epps if he had any association with any intelligence agencies or cutouts of such agencies? If so, what did he say? If not, why not?
Feuer’s NYT piece describes Epps as a Trump supporter.
He says “Trump traveled to Washington to back Mr. Trump”… and that he “took a last minute trip to Washington for Trump’s speech about election fraud.”
The only problem is EPPS DIDNT GO TO TRUMPS SPEECH
That’s right, this alleged Trump supporter travelled all the way from Arizona to DC, and didn’t even attend Trump’s speech. Instead, he spent the evening of January 5th and the morning of the 6th telling people to go into the Capitol (VIDEO)
Did Alan Feuer, the obscure (bluecheck-less!) NYT reporter who penned the puff piece, think to ask Epps why he travelled all the way to DC and skipped Trump’s speech?
For that matter, did Feuer ask Epps where he got the idea to urge people to go into the Capitol in the first place?
Did it occur to him out of the blue?
Did someone else give him the idea? If so, who?
The whole purpose of Jan 6 Committee is to figure out what caused Jan 6. Epps was calling for people to go into the Capitol the evening before.
Wouldn’t it be newsworthy to know where Epps got the idea, and why he was so doggedly fixated that particular mission?
The very fact that these questions weren’t asked indicates that this is one of the sloppiest and most transparent cover-up jobs in New York Times history— a total Feuer job!
The Times attempts to wave off Epps’ January 6 participation as negligible, similar to those who committed minor offenses and weren’t charged
Yet Epps is the key person caught on video with an advance plan to go into the Capitol.
He’s there the morning of directing people to the Capitol, and he’s right up at the barricade during the initial breach
after the breach Epps runs into the restricted zone.
Note that many others, including Jeremy Brown, Owen Shroyer, Ibrahim, Cuoy Griffin, and others have been hit with tresspassing charges for this
But Epps isn’t open to just a trespassing charge.
Not enough has been said about the significance of the following video.
Note Epps message “WHEN we go in, leave this here.” Epps says this just minutes before the intiial breach of Capitol grounds
How is this not a basis for a conspiracy charge?
For some perspective, Jan 6 defendent George Tanios faces serious conspiracy charges for saying “no no not yet it’s still early” when his alleged co-conspirator asked for bear spray
Ray Epps’ participation in the Jan 6 riot was sufficiently egregious as to make him one of the early targets of the Sedition Hunters, and earn him a spot as one of the first 20 of FBI’s most wanted for January 6
Amazingly, Ray-Epps is referenced as a pre-planner of the Capitol siege in the NYT’s OWN VIDEO DOCUMENTARY of January 6, “Day of Rage: How Trump Supporters Took the US Capitol”
The very same NYT that now dismisses “conspiracies” about Ray Epps refers to Epps in its own definitive video documentary as a rioters for whom “storming the capitol was part of the plot all along”
Again the NYT video documentary features Epps as one of the key orchestrators of the Capitol siege
The Times piece ominously suggests Epps will sue news outlets for defamation… should Epps sue the NYT for suggesting Epps pre-planned the Capitol attack in its own ostensibly definitive video documentary of that “day of rage?
The bottom line here is that Ray Epps is the smoking gun of the Fedsurrection narrative, and the New York times is kicking off a massive damage control campaign to make any unsanctioned ideas about Epps too toxic and dangerous to print
Regime janitors like Feuer who specialize in mopping up Fed dirty work will go into overdrive as more about Ray Epps and the initial breach comes out
We’re on to their game – its too late
Ray Epps says he just wants the truth to come out. Let it be so.
[Links]
The original Ray Epps video
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-egkmhWMLdg
Ignore me!
“A dog also died…” Sometimes police have to go to extremes to kill the dog.
But that dog had to die, so that cops may drink later that night at Applebee’s.
Normally when cops kill dogs they do it in front of the owner so they can delight in the pain that they cause. Killing a pet in a house fire must have been very disappointing, since they didn’t get to laugh in the owner’s face.
They can imagine the owner’s face though. It can follow them as they sip their Applebee’s Star Spangled Sips this summer.
I don’t know why I chose Applebee’s for my example, but now I kind of want to go to one. I haven’t been to one in like a decade.
May as well just pour salt into your mouth. That place oversalts everything.
The steaks are marinated in bags and then frozen. So what goes on the grill is already soaked in salt. Last steak I ate was inedible. To me anyway.
Apparently a lot of people like that shit or there wouldn’t be one in every town.
If you like salt, go for it. If you don’t, don’t.
https://twitter.com/TomFitton/status/1547640748081762305?t=HsKCGQJUxiPI31ELSgrFXA&s=19
Babbitt shooting internal police docs reveal ‘no good reason for shooting,’ according to @JudicialWatch
[Link]
Perhaps, some day, some legislature somewhere will pass a law that any judge signing a no-knock, or SWAT warrant, must accompany the serving of that warrant.
Saw this when Balko lied about it.
Now Reason is following suit.
The police here absolutely failed in their duty to protect public safety.
Officer safety is what matters. Not public safety. Besides, the public is everyone else. It’s not the people the police interact with. Those people serve the police, and their lives don’t matter.
I’m not a subject matter expert, but it was my understanding is that flash bangs are usually deployed as distractions just prior to making an entry. They don’t have much use outside of that. So why the hell were they deploying them but not following up immediately with an entry?
Had they entered immediately, they could have contained the fire or gotten the suspect and hostages out before it was a problem.
Well, assuming they didn’t just shoot everyone and sort it out later, anyway…
This is my thought too. I don’t actually see the problem anywhere here other than police once again not doing what they should have done. Just throwing flash bangs into houses and hoping bad guy leaves because he doesn’t like bright light and loud noise is not a reasonable strategy, it’s not how those devices are used. If they’d used them and rushed the house while bad guy was disoriented and unable to hear/see, which is how the only point of flash bangs, there would have been no issue here and someone who sounds like a menace to society would be off the streets. Unfortunately he’d probably be back on the streets within the year.
The whole country has become Waco.
The local sheriff was at the compound many times, responding to one complaint or another from neighbors. He drove up in a marked patrol car, in the daylight, wearing uniform and a badge. He knocked on the front door, and discussed the issue with the resident who answered. No violence, no grief.
The feds show up with an army, and a battle breaks out.
People besides police have responsibility for their actions.
This guy chose to flee inside the home and barricade it. The dead kid apparently agreed.
I feel bad for the dog, though
15 year olds are not considered mentally mature enough o make life decisions asshole.
They’re considered mature enough to cut off their tallywhacker and wear a dress, or be tried as an adult, or decide without their parents permission to get an abortion, and some consider them mature enough to vote. Whether they’re “mature enough” seems to depend more on what the action is and the politics of the viewer than the actual age of the minor. Heck, you can ride as a child on your parent’s insurance until 26 because you’re not “mature enough” to attend to your own health care.
Cops are upset the dog died without any of them getting a chance to shoot it.
Police should show more patience. In most instances, they can wait criminals out. Eric Garner comes to mind.
Bad training and deployment of both irritants and bangs.
Some CS agents are flammable. Others are dispersed by burning. Flash-bangs are pyrotechnic devices which should be used to drive people away from the entry point and to distract them during the entry.
My training emphasized that, when you deploy a bang, if you didn’t see where it landed, you had done it wrong. You have to see where it goes in order to minimize the chances that it comes in contact with anything that can catch fire because the bang, as I said, is pyrotechnic in nature.
APD SWAT needs retraining before being allowed to deploy any of this stuff again.
And you don’t just toss flash bangs into the house and hope it scares the guy out. They’re meant to deafen and disorient the perps so you can rush in and attend to business immediately. That’s my only real problem with the entire scenario here, if the cops deployed them and rushed the house there probably would have been a good, or at least better, result here.
The ABQ PD has a LONG history of outrageous nazi level abuse. They used to love nothing so much as getting invited to the scene of a sucidial-minded person threatening to kill themselves in public: “PULL!” was how they viewed this. They ABQ cops for awhile there were killing more suicidial people than suiciadal people were killing…