Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

gorgon wrote:This leads right into to an interesting question IMO -- should officer safety or citizen safety be the primary concern?

Given that the job of the officer is supposed to "protect & serve", I'm going pick "citizen safety".

Especially as the officers are the active party here. They created the situation, and apparently fired blind at the house.

I see nothing that says SWAT fired at the house, only that the shot came from outside. We can conclude that is what happened but we also don't know what might have caused the officer to open fire.

The people in the house created the situation by harboring a felon. Again, if you don't want police knocking your door in at 1AM don't allow a man who killed a teenager to reside in your house and hide there.

I know for a 100% fact that at least 2 of the officers there that night toked.

Fateweaver wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:

gorgon wrote:This leads right into to an interesting question IMO -- should officer safety or citizen safety be the primary concern?

Given that the job of the officer is supposed to "protect & serve", I'm going pick "citizen safety".

Especially as the officers are the active party here. They created the situation, and apparently fired blind at the house.

I see nothing that says SWAT fired at the house, only that the shot came from outside. We can conclude that is what happened but we also don't know what might have caused the officer to open fire.

The people in the house created the situation by harboring a felon. Again, if you don't want police knocking your door in at 1AM don't allow a man who killed a teenager to reside in your house and hide there.

Um, no, they didn't. The felon wasn't in the house at all.

Officers arrested the suspect during the search, Godbee said. Jones said the suspect wasn't in his apartment but one upstairs that officers raided at the same time.

Wrong apartment!

JohnHwangDD wrote:

gorgon wrote:This leads right into to an interesting question IMO -- should officer safety or citizen safety be the primary concern?

Given that the job of the officer is supposed to "protect & serve", I'm going pick "citizen safety".

Especially as the officers are the active party here. They created the situation, and apparently fired blind at the house.

Until we actually see the Michigan State Bureau of Investigation come back with a ballistics match to any of the officers' weapons, I'm going to say your statement is a ridiculous reactionary statement. Kay?

It is not uncommon in low income areas for SWAT/police serving warrants or performing raids to get shot at. Hell, it's not uncommon for it to happen in any US city that has gang activity.

The worst part is it's not limited to just shooting at police officers or SWAT. These same gaks also take potshots at EMS crews.

Upstairs of the duplex.

Obviously authorities had reason to suspect he'd be in either one. Apparently a dual warrant. Apparently they acted as they were supposed to.

What happened is tragic. What SHOULD have happened is the guy who killed the teen gets shot in the neck during the breach but it was a little girl instead.

If someone in an apartment building is dealing, that makes it right to raid every apartment, or even the entire block? Really?

They're "supposed to" get broad warrants? Really?

I wasn't aware I lived in a police state.

Done arguing with you.

Logic has eluded you John.

But go on thinking it's automatically SWATS fault that some 46 year old lost all common sense, attacked a cop and now a 7yo is dead.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Damn double post.

JohnHwangDD wrote:If someone in an apartment building is dealing, that makes it right to raid every apartment, or even the entire block? Really?

They're "supposed to" get broad warrants? Really?

Actually, since they have to convince a judge that the guy might be in the place they want a warrant for, yeah they are supposed to get broad warrants if they need them.

This isn't about "Dealing" either, it's about someone who gunned down a teenager. Seriously dude, being this reactionary against police becomes really sad when you get out of your mid-teens.

JohnHwangDD wrote:If someone in an apartment building is dealing, that makes it right to raid every apartment, or even the entire block? Really?

They're "supposed to" get broad warrants? Really?

I wasn't aware I lived in a police state.

Apartment building != duplex.

Use some common sense.

If someone in an apartment building is dealing, then they'll get a warrant to raid raid that apartment. If they have reason to believe there is more than one person in said building dealing?

Then they'll get warrants to raid those apartments.

However they will establish a cordon around the apartment complex and not let anyone in or out while the raid is in progress.

Fateweaver wrote:
I see nothing that says SWAT fired at the house, only that the shot came from outside.

Uh, dude, the subject of the article that discusses the shot coming from outside includes the notion that it was fired by a cop. No one with any perspective on the incident has discussed the idea that the shot was fired by someone else. Additionally, the 'outside' being referred to is not 'outside the building' its 'outside the apartment'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

JohnHwangDD wrote:If someone in an apartment building is dealing, that makes it right to raid every apartment, or even the entire block? Really?

They're "supposed to" get broad warrants? Really?

I wasn't aware I lived in a police state.

Unless you live in Michigan, you probably don't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kanluwen wrote:
If someone in an apartment building is dealing, then they'll get a warrant to raid raid that apartment. If they have reason to believe there is more than one person in said building dealing?

Then they'll get warrants to raid those apartments.

But that's not what was done, the police made official statements that indicated the warrant applied to the whole building.

And the whole building is a duplex.

As in, a side-by-side semi-connected home.

They'd have to get a warrant for the whole building either way due to the nature of the building.

I don't think some people are aware of how duplexes work.

As Kan said, you need a warrant for the WHOLE house. Duplex =/= an apartment complex.

Kanluwen wrote:

However they will establish a cordon around the apartment complex and not let anyone in or out while the raid is in progress.

So now you're claiming that there were in fact Police outside the apartment and they weren't all, magically, inside the building and unable to fire at the apartment. Even though earlier you were claiming the polie were inside and therfore couldn't have fired from outside the apartment. Okay. And not one of these guys happened to notice this mysterious new gunman, from some knoll presumably, who randomly fired into the apartment killing the girl. Right.



Meanwhile... http://seorant.ath.cx/police/ladybird.html That's more our understanding of the Police.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

reds8n wrote: And best of all they didn't find the big block of hash I had in my bedroom either

In Amerika, they'd have found it, and then nailed you to the wall as a big-time drug dealer...

Yeah, really. I am not a fan of the US's stance on drugs. But that's off-topic, so I won't go into it any farther.

I see that I did come off rather childish in my earlier post.

What I meant was, I don't like it when cops, who are here to PROTECT the people, while they come and shoot a kid. Just set off a wrong reaction with me, apologies.

Anyways, it would be absolutely......whats a word...astronomical.

Kanluwen wrote:And the whole building is a duplex.

As in, a side-by-side semi-connected home.

They'd have to get a warrant for the whole building either way due to the nature of the building.

No, if they are side-by-side homes sharing a wall, then they are considered separate properties necessitating separate warrants.

If they are two separate dwellings on two separate floors within the same building sharing more than a wall, then they are a single property necessitating a single warrant.

We do not know which is the case, as the term duplex covers both cases.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fateweaver wrote:I don't think some people are aware of how duplexes work.

Indeed, it appears that way.

Fateweaver wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:

gorgon wrote:This leads right into to an interesting question IMO -- should officer safety or citizen safety be the primary concern?

Given that the job of the officer is supposed to "protect & serve", I'm going pick "citizen safety".

Especially as the officers are the active party here. They created the situation, and apparently fired blind at the house.

I see nothing that says SWAT fired at the house, only that the shot came from outside. We can conclude that is what happened but we also don't know what might have caused the officer to open fire.

The people in the house created the situation by harboring a felon. Again, if you don't want police knocking your door in at 1AM don't allow a man who killed a teenager to reside in your house and hide there.

There is this brand new concept called innocent until proven guilty. in order to be a fellon he would have to be convicted wouldn't he, also i don't think most people go around saying "i killed a kid". And this would only matter if there were actually harboring a felon not just near someone who was.

Fateweaver wrote:There will be a civil suit I'm sure. The US is great for this "entitlement" mentality that allows criminals and lazy fethers to get millions of dollars for doing nothing at all. Like the McD's lawsuit over the hot coffee and many others of that nature.

“Doing nothing at all”? Seven year old child was killed. I’m not sure I’d really describe that “doing nothing at all”, personally.

And McDonalds hot coffee case involved coffee that wasn’t just hot, but ludicrously hot, to the extent that it caused second degree burns to the genitals, through the jeans in about 20 seconds. It was this hot because the machine was faulty, and despite a large volume of complaints in the month or two before the incident, nothing was done to repair it. The plaintiff originally tried to just recover the cost of the skin grafts and no more, and only took the matter to court when McDonalds refused that much. While the punitive damages originally awarded by the jury was extremely high, this was brought down on appeal.

While it’s nice and easy to form opinions about based around a single line ‘she sued because her coffee was hot teehee’, reality is often a lot more complicated.

Karon wrote:Dumbass GI Joe cops, armed to take down a damn T-REX, come in, and shoot a kid.

I mean come on. I hope that cop goes to jail for the rest of his life. That shouldn't ever happen. His life is already ruined, his dreams haunted with him shooting a baby.

Flakk the police, never liked them.

Being a policeman is an extremely difficult job. While it is a dangerous mistake to back the police in everything they do, your opinion above is just as problematic.

There is a position in between, where you can weigh the needs of the officer to protect himself and any civilians against the risk of causing greater harm. Reading the opening story and concluding the officers were dumbass GI Joe cops is not giving that kind of balanced opinion.

Fateweaver wrote:The people in the house created the situation by harboring a felon. Again, if you don't want police knocking your door in at 1AM don't allow a man who killed a teenager to reside in your house and hide there.

They weren’t harbouring a felon. He was not in their dwelling. Don’t lecture people on jumping to conclusions when you can’t get the simple facts of the case right.

While my reading at this point seems like this was a tragic incident rather than poor police practice, you’re effort to assign blame to the family who were in their own home, not harbouring anyone is quite odious.

OMG, the police were wrong! Say it isn't so!

A terrible shame about the child, but that's life sometimes. Bad things happen to innocent people all the time.

sebster wrote:

Fateweaver wrote:The people in the house created the situation by harboring a felon. Again, if you don't want police knocking your door in at 1AM don't allow a man who killed a teenager to reside in your house and hide there.

They weren’t harbouring a felon. He was not in their dwelling. Don’t lecture people on jumping to conclusions when you can’t get the simple facts of the case right.

While my reading at this point seems like this was a tragic incident rather than poor police practice, you’re effort to assign blame to the family who were in their own home, not harbouring anyone is quite odious.

They police had a warrant to enter that apartment, which means that I judge decided that they had probable cause to think that the guy they were looking for would be in there. The fact that he wasn't there at the time doesn't mean that it's impossible for it to ever happen.

As far as the facts of the case are concerned, none of us really know enough to speak with any kind of real authority on them. It's a terrible tragedy, and obviously an accident. I don't know what else there is to say about it.

Monster Rain wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:If someone in an apartment building is dealing, that makes it right to raid every apartment, or even the entire block? Really?

They're "supposed to" get broad warrants? Really?

Actually, since they have to convince a judge that the guy might be in the place they want a warrant for, yeah they are supposed to get broad warrants if they need them.

This isn't about "Dealing" either, it's about someone who gunned down a teenager. Seriously dude, being this reactionary against police becomes really sad when you get out of your mid-teens.

Thats not how it works. You have to have warrants for every location with probable cause satisfied for every location. Blanket warrants means the judge is going to get his head kicked in by the appellate court.

Monster Rain wrote:

gorgon wrote:This leads right into to an interesting question IMO -- should officer safety or citizen safety be the primary concern?

The problem is that you won't find people willing to storm a house if they won't be allowed to defend themselves if the people in there don't want to come quietly...

Which is why I think raids like this ought to be the very last resort. It's an incredibly adrenaline packed situation on all sides. You're setting up occupants to get themselves shot (again, I could see myself not being as submissive as the cops would want me in that situation) and setting up the cops for an accident to happen.

Just so I'm clear -- it may be that it IS treated as a very last resort by the Detroit and other police departments. I'm not claiming they were being cowboys in this case because we don't know the particulars. I just think the maneuver itself is fraught with peril and hope that my local LE would think carefully before attempting this at anyone's home.

@ Frazzled:

That remains to be seen. My point was if they have a warrant it's because they convinced a judge that there was probable cause for them to look in those places, that's all.

Monster Rain wrote:@ Frazzled:

That remains to be seen. My point was if they have a warrant it's because they convinced a judge that there was probable cause for them to look in those places, that's all.

Ayah. I was just noting that there isn't such things as blanket warrants.