Another "rare" wrong house raid

[Dannyboy]

Difficult to say, good stats weren't kept.

My point, exactly.

[Tallpine]

if you have a case where swat was called out to go after a recreational user as the intent of their warrant i'll still be waiting

Well for one there was a SWAT raid on a family in Colorado a few years back to search the high school son's room    IIRC they stomped a few kittens but didn't find any dope.

And no - I don't have a link handy.  I've read a lot of stuff in my life and I don't have a link for everything that I've ever read.

Really, even if the "neighbor" is dealing then how does it bother me?  He could be selling Amway, too 

[Firethorn]

Really, even if the "neighbor" is dealing then how does it bother me?  He could be selling Amway, too 

Amway, Mary Kay, tupperware, gourmet chef, etc...

The only thing I'd have about dealers is licensing them as selling good product and collecting the appropriate sales tax.   

[The Annoyed Man]

Tallpine:

Links mean nothing these days.

Everyone asks for a credible source. This does not equate to an actual desire to know the truth, or research things for themselves.

The truth is, even if you provided a plethora of supporting information, complete with primary and secondary sources, signed and authorized by God himself to be factual, it would not suffice.

I've posted this before, and I'll post it again:

http://www.jonathancrossfield.com/blog/2008/05/how-to-win-arguments-online-a.html

[Ex-MA Hole]

Do you have any stats to back this up, cs-daddy?

Why did you have to do this?  Come on.

I can NEVER figure out what he is trying to say, now, because you gave his post credibility, I feel stupid because I can not translate what he is trying to say.

Thanks.

Thanks a lot.

 

[Tallpine]

I have no idea where to find the statistics on "out of N many swat/no-knock warrants, X percent were for suspected possession and Y percent were for suspected trafficking."  Then there would be Z percent where no evidence of illegal drug activity is found after trashing the residence.  I doubt such records even exist, unless some eager beaver were to do a FOIA request on every single warrant issued over some sample period of time.

A few years back (I'm not sure if it was before or after we moved out here to this place - heard about it from other neighbors) a guy down the road was busted for growing and selling MJ.  He's a typical middle-aged pot-head that can't maintain a thought over two sentences but he's harmless.  Now, the raid and arrest did me no harm but neither did it do me any benefit.  He could have been growing tomatoes for all I could care.

The fact that there may have been police abuse in the past does not excuse police abuse in the present.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

the claim made was that swat was used to serve a warrant for someone suspected of mere possesion. surely if that was the case it would be featured in mr balkos piece. there have been a number where they screwed the pooch based on a lie from someone. ie were told they were a dealer. the recent case in va where the guy fired through the door may turn out to be one. but as far as i know/have read/have heard swat would laugh at that kinda deal. only way i could envision it is they had some fear that the guy was armed and violent as well as a stoner. not that likely pot doesn't do that. anybody selling weed nowadays would be wise to be armed they get robbed pretty often. killed too  sometime their innocent roomates get killed in the deal.

[alan2]

I don't know about apologies, however I expect that a suit seeking damages on the order of multi millions of dollars just might get someone's attention. Seems like it would be appropriate too. Then there is the possibility of charges for violation of civil rights, however that would require "government to act against government", as with charges/action by U.S. Department of Justice being brought against the Buffalo PD.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

i'll bet that you get a settlment from cities insurance carrier in 6 figures with their laweyer getting 1/3  negotiations will take about 18 months to 2 years

not sure what hook you imagine you can hang the fed civil rights beef on.being stupid to someone is not a civil rights violation   or did the rules change again

[alan2]

i'll bet that you get a settlment from cities insurance carrier in 6 figures with their laweyer getting 1/3  negotiations will take about 18 months to 2 years

not sure what hook you imagine you can hang the fed civil rights beef on.being stupid to someone is not a civil rights violation   or did the rules change again

Re the last question, I would leave that to the "legal eagles" of which I'm not one.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

aw come on  you brought it up  take a shot.  someone else surely will

[dogmush]

aw come on  you brought it up  take a shot.  someone else surely will

I'll try.

I'd imagine some combination of:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

and:

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress

Combined with a lot of time and money could do it.

Unfortunatly, I'd bet, and the cops are betting, that the wronged person in this case has neither the time nor the money for a civil suit.  It's a shame because I'd like to see the LEO that led this raid lose his career and house over this.  If you fail basic reading comprehension, you shouldn't be a cop.

[Firethorn]

the claim made was that swat was used to serve a warrant for someone suspected of mere possesion.

I'd believe it, don't have a link handy but remember the incident where the dentist optometrist moonlighting as a bookie got shot by SWAT?  Outside of his home, pretty much because one of them had their finger on the trigger while running towards him, pointing his gun at the dentist's optometrist's head.  No suspicion the dentist even OWNED a gun, much less carried one throughout his day.  So why pull a warrant for arrest using pre-drawn guns?

Turned out that the city used SWAT to serve something like 90% of their warrants - and yes, they did the full tactical thing.

edit - remembered wrong.

[dogmush]

I'd believe it, don't have a link handy but remember the incident where the dentist moonlighting as a bookie got shot by SWAT?

I believe you mean Salvatore Culosi, Jr.

[Firethorn]

I believe you mean Salvatore Culosi, Jr.

Thank you.  He's the one.

I can agree that maybe holding the cop responsable in this case might be wrong - because he was wrong because he was trained and used wrong.  The department/city is responsable here.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

the culosi case was a tragedy  and it didn't have to happen. it was also unusualin the the cops aknowledged crewing the pooch right away. a good tactic some other places might try

[dogmush]

the culosi case was a tragedy  and it didn't have to happen. it was also unusualin the the cops aknowledged crewing the pooch right away. a good tactic some other places might try

And that's the point.  They all don't have to happen.  Every time SWAT messes up a raid, it didn't have to happen.

Here's a tactic that other places might want to try:  Don't storm peoples house like you think you're in Baghdad.  Oh wait, No we kock on the doors and get the head of the houses permission in Baghdad, nevermind.

There's very little, if any, justifiable use of military equipment and tactics in civilian law enforcement.  The sooner SWAT teams realize this, the less people, LEO's and civilians, will die.

[anygunanywhere]

Really, even if the "neighbor" is dealing then how does it bother me?  He could be selling Amway, too 

If you ever had a neighbor dealing then it would not be funny.

We bought our current home in 2003. It is in a very nice neighborhood in a nice city.

Our neighbor was dealing. LEOs told us all about it after the bust. Up until he was arrested it was often irritating with the amount of traffic and users in and out of his house.

The folks who bought the house after foreclosure were annoyed by users for awhile. My new nieghbor is quite an imposing physical specimen. Word got out fairly quickly that it was not a good idea to knock on the door and askfor a dimer.

No, SWAT did not raid the wrong house.

[Firethorn]

Our neighbor was dealing. LEOs told us all about it after the bust. Up until he was arrested it was often irritating with the amount of traffic and users in and out of his house.

I wonder, what would the odds be that he would have been dealing out of his house if it was legal?  I'm guessing not high - at that point he can open a storefront and not break any laws.

[Tallpine]

If you ever had a neighbor dealing then it would not be funny.

Well, the guy down the road a couple miles was growing & selling pot and I never even knew about until after the fact.

I'n pretty sure that my former next door neighbor (who was a serious problem, but for other reasons) was growing and selling MJ.  At least he had a greenhouse built and after that he suddenly seemed to have an awful lot of traffic from short term visitors     (what do I know, maybe they were coming from miles around to buy his lucious tomatoes? :p )  Even that wasn't really a problem except for more traffic in and out of his driveway easement.

Amazingly, the feds apparently came up and arrested him for something entirely different without us knowing anything about it.  I first heard about him being indicted on the radio    He was immediately released on PR bond.   I assume that he was arrested at some point though - they don't just call folks and politely ask them to come in to be indicted, do they?