Oops! Swat kicks in wrong door....
 

http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline...an-shoots.html

So, what does everyone think? Should he be charged with a crime? Is he justified if he sues the PD?

Personally, As long as he wasn't breaking any firearms laws, I would hope that the PD just lets it drop and settles quickly.

/waiting for the anti-police militia rant to ensue...

Funny, I was waiting for the anti-gun rant myself.....

my initial thought...ka-ching. jackpot.
doesnt matter if he is justified or not to sue. someone will take the case and the city will settle out of court for an undisclosed sum.

since he wasnt charged initially, i think they may be hesitant to do so now as that would add fuel to the fire in a civil lawsuit.

hopefully it was just an unfortunate mistake. its a good thing nobody was hurt.

All the homeowner knew is that someone was very forcibly breaking into his house, and he felt he had to protect his family. It was self defense, and I would've done the exact same thing. The PD had better drop all charges and pray to God that he doesn't sue the shit out of them (which is also what I would do). After all, the SWAT team did put at least seven innocent people into a very deadly situation because they didn't take the time to doublecheck their intel.

No political comment here.:expressionless:

A man doesn't pick up a gun and shoot in his safe harbor/home unless he's in fear for his life (or pissed at his wife :lol: )

Don't the cops have to yell a warning or knock before breaking down a door?

The City of Minneapolis has sovereign immunity. They can't be sued for things like this, just like they can't be sued for car accidents involving their squad cars. Any forthcoming lawsuit is going to have to make a claim that falls outside of that immunity.

what can they charge him with? defending his own home? if a bunch of dudes with guns came into my home, i'd shoot first. i know the police understand that, the city won't charge him.

this is like a small scale version of when we bombed the chinese embassy by mistake.

i assume the official spokesman would release this message: "oops, our bad, sorry."

It depends on the type of warrant that they've got. In certain situations, police can obtain "no knock" warrants to allow them to forcibly enter a home without warning. In fact, I believe there was a very similar case a while back where cops executed a warrant like this at the wrong address, a resident there shot at them, presumably to defend herself, and was killed by the police.

... Just looked it up, and here we go:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathryn_Johnston

or the pro-police state no private property rights rant?

The police don't care about understanding that. The mentality of most policemen nowadays is 'i'm going home at the end of my shift' and if that means they kill innocent law abiding citizens defending their home, so be it. They can charge him with attempted murder of a police officer, whether he was using self defense or not.

you assume too much i'm afraid.

This happened near where I used to live.

Wow, that puts many potentially innocent homeowners at risk, not to mention the risk for the Officers involved.

Sounds like maybe they need to look into changing the verbiage of these warrants or method of entrance. I don't know the answer, but that's just too much collateral damage.

Stuff like this happens all the time.

Gee, I wonder why noboby has ever brought this subject up before? :surprised: :rolleyes:

May I present yet another stupid question, since this is in my neighborhood?

Knowing the dangers, why do we allow the "authorities" to enter anybody's house? If it's not out on the streets, is it really any of their business?

Okay, I know. I don't accept.

I think it was unfortunate, but honest mistake by both parties. Even if a police officer had been fataly wounded, I don't think there should be any charges fired. It even said in the article that when the man realized that it was the police, he put his weapon down and surrendered.

I think it was fortunate that nobody was hurt, but also entirely do the incompetence on behalf of the SWAT team. They have no excuse for missing at hallway distances, with long guns, and multiple people.

The story doesn't tell us whether they followed their legal responsibility and identified themselves as police. If they didn't, the shot was clean. If they did and he didn't hear them, the shot was clean. If they did and he heard them, the shot was bad.

That's a shitty situation all around? I don't think he'll be charged for anything, but the bad part is, the cops have their backs covered so well. No public apology or anything. At the bottom of that article, it says 92-year-old woman dies in shootout with police in Atlanta. It sounds like it does happen more often then you think?

Municipalities aren't covered under sovereign immunity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity

Furthermore, tort claims can be filed against the officers who were responsible for knocking the man's door down.

We've got a similar brouhaha going on here in my town, though much less violent. My city is going through a big review of its police department's practices in regards to pretexted traffic stops performed to catch DUI. One officer in particular had performed hundreds of pretext stops, with only about a 50% success rate. His name had become a byword in this town for DUI arrest; he even arrested a good friend of mine for not signaling quickly enough. The officer in question did the same last spring to a young man who was in fact sober and serving as the DD for his wife and friends. The officer still arrested him for DUI, under suspicion of marijuana use (same thing he did to my friend, btw). The city is now facing a tort claim filed by the wrongly arrested man, because DUI arrests, under Oregon law, cannot be expunged from a person's arrest record. Given that this officer had about a 50% success rate in his DUI arrests, that leaves a significant number of people with DUI permanently on their records. Needless to say, a lot of people came out of the woodwork very quickly, and the officer in question resigned.

Because I turned in my 12 page paper on the militarization of the modern police force to the college I attend instead of TFP's paranoid crowd.

Interesting stories: SWAT GONE WRONG

Lemme know if you want more. They're easy to find via search engines.

I think you missed my sarcasm. Especially considering the amount of crap I've taken every time I post one of these stories, go figure.

I'm an undercover brother.

Did SWAT pay for the door?

I don't know about that. I think the largest unbudgeted expenditure of the city of minneapolis has been paying out settlements after the police department violates someone's rights. This includes an instance of one trigger happy officer actually shooting another officer who was in plainclothes and doubled over after having already being shot by a third party.

The trigger happy cop's name is charles storlie, and was previously known in the community as that cop who shot that kid in the back as he was running away and got away with it. Now he's known as that cop who shot another cop and got away with it. Where is he now? Well, the only reason he isn't still on the mpd is that he is a civilian security contractor in iraq. That's reassuring.

The mpd has a rich tradition of douchebaggery. This latest event doesn't surprise me one bit- except the part where they didn't kill everybody in the apartment. Kudos to them, i guess.

Good info there, filth. Scary, too.

Interesting info. My immunity lists are incorrect. Snowy, sovereign immunity can be granted to municipalities by states, but that's only valid in state court.

Are you sure you're not talking about chicago? :hmm:

It could easily be true for both. Shit, it might be true for every large city- the bigger the city the larger the number of bad apples.

I don't want to hear that rant, either. Just because I don't agree with an "anti-police militia rant" doesn't mean I agree with the polar opposite.

I agree with you on most terms, really, I just don't share the full breadth of your fervor, your penchant for militia, or your overall paranoia that the government is out to get me, take my guns, rape and kill my family (not necessarily in that order), and take away my property rights while burning an American flag with the constitution stapled to it and kicking a puppy.

Apart from that, we're pretty much in the same camp. Not a militia camp, mind you, but a figurative camp. :)

Also: my apologies to push-pull for coming in to this thread and dropping off a snarky one-liner that did nothing for the discussion. Having said that, I stand behind the one-liner anyway. :)

In case you didn't notice, I saw your one-liner and raised you another. ;)

Speaking of jack-booted thugs kick puppies...

I found an interesting paper done by the CATO Institute.

Talks about the growth of paramilitarism in the modern po-po.

Scary stuff if you consider how the issue grows each year.

HERE 14 pages in Adobe Acrobat.

Big Question: Why do cops need bayonets, again?

"Stop! Or I'll stab you!"

Ya-huh! That would be unacceptable in a military unit. If you're expending rounds, you better turn up some dead "terrorists" or else... paperwork for days!

How the hell does a SWAT team with middle or top drawer weaponry and optics miss at that close range? Did they have their eyes open? What's the deal?

I'd clown their asses forever if I was a beat cop in that town.

Allegedly, the SWAT unit identified themselves as police, but the man doesn't speak English.

This was a series of bad circumstances. It's a good thing no one had to die over this.

The the man who didn't speak english was at fault. People shouldn't be forced to learn english, but there will be consequences for not learning it.

I agree, willravel. I sure as Hell wouldn't move to a foreign country without being able to understand the language that 86% of its citizens speak. HOWEVER, neither the United States or the state of Minnesota actually have an official language (although Minnesota currently is working on passing a bill that will make English their official language). He's not legally required to know, learn, speak or understand English so they really can't use that against him.

Dao Kang. Clearly of asian ancestry. Chinese, I'm guessing. Notice how the article doesn't say if Khang is legal?

I, too, recommend shooting at people with intent to kill because they fail to understand English. [/sarcasm]

What "consequences" do you recommend for someone not speaking English? It's not a fucking crime.

The question here is less if he should have shot at the police or he needed to speak english but WHY did they kick down the wrong door.

Thats the weak link, and what sort of threat did they think he posed that would require such action?

If that issue is addressed then the rest would not need to be addressed.

I'm talking about real world consequences, nothing state imposed (obviously). If, for example, someone wanted to purchase goods from me working at my previous job, they have to speak english. Only a few sales associates spoke Spanish, and none spoke traditional Chinese. Had someone who only spoke Chinese called in to order goods, they would have consequentially been unable to order due directly to their inability to speak English. Likewise, the inability to recognize the word "police" could have meant that this man could have been shot. Just like the consequences of not tying your shoes could be tripping, there are consequences of not speaking the native language of the place where you live. It's called "real world consequences of ignorance".

Ustwo: The article didn't address the issue, so we don't have any information beyond the basic "they kicked in the wrong door" to address. We don't know who screwed up.

He's Hmong. Another article by the AP says:
He could be from China, Laos, Thailand, or Vietnam, or any other number of places in SE Asia where Hmong live.

A lot of Hmong have ended up in the United States, originally as refugees, because of our actions in Vietnam/SE Asia. 270,000 Hmong live in the United States.

He is most likely lawfully here.

incorrect. We know who screwed up and it was the planners of this raid. They received information from 'a source' and either chose to believe the source without investigation or they plain failed to investigate it properly. This is the main reason why police units SHOULD be held responsible, but will not be because of judicial precedent.