dksuddeth

alot of people on here have said that it's tragic, but necessary, to have heavily armored SWAT teams serve warrants in case suspects are armed or that evidence is destroyed but I have to wonder, for those that can willingly accept the deaths of innocent people during SWAT raids, is there a limit to how many must die before they would reconsider?

For those that are in with the gun control crowd and are fond of saying 'if it saves the life of just one child, it's worth it', how do you justify a death due to a botched SWAT raid?

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

The_Jazz

You need to define your terms much better. What constitutes a "botched" raid? What are the circumstances for the raid? What are the charges? Would I accept 5 deaths to stop a terrorist cell that was going to blow up Texas Stadium during a game? Probably. Would I accept 1 serving a warrant on a non-violent offender? Much less likely.

All of the possible deaths are circumstantial and some might be acceptable and some might not. In any event, accidential deaths tend to be unavoidable by their very definition. Avoidable deaths are not and those should be prosecuted.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

dksuddeth

botched raids, as in wrong address. Innocent lives as in somebody at wrong address OR someone not involved in the crime or warrant.

For example,

March 24, 1992—WA

In March 1992, police in Everett, Washington storm the home of Robin Pratt on a no-knock warrant. They are looking for her husband, who would later be released when the allegations in the warrant turned out to be false.

Though police had a key to the apartment, they instead choose to throw a 50-pound battering ram through the apartment's sliding-glass door. Glass shards land inches away from the couple's six-year-old daughter and five-year-old niece. One officer encounters Robin Pratt on the way to her bedroom. Hearing other SWAT team members yell "Get down!" Pratt falls to her knees. She then raises her head briefly to say, "Please don't hurt my children." At that point, Deputy Anthony Aston fires his weapon, putting a bullet in her neck, killing her.

Officers next entered the bedroom, where Dep. Aston then put the tip of his MP-5 assault submachine gun against Larry Pratt's head. When Pratt asked if he could move, another officer said that if he did, he'd have his head blown off.

Though a subsequent investigation by a civilian inquest jury found the shooting "unjustified," the officer who shot and killed Pratt was never charged.

Sources:

Jolayne Houtz, "Suit filed against city, county in SWAT death -- Officers also named in Everett shooting," Seattle Times, October 16, 1992.

Rick Anderson, "License to Kill," Seattle Weekly, November 3, 1999.

Or

October 2, 1992—CA



In an early morning drug raid on October 2, 1992, 31 officers from five police agencies break down the door to the multimillion dollar home of Donald Scott.

Frightened, Scott's wife screams, "Don't shoot me. Don't kill me." Hearing his wife's screams, Scott emerges from his bedroom holding a handgun, still groggy from a recent cataract operation. When Scott raises the gun in the direction of the police intruders, the raiding officers shoot him dead.

Despite assurances from the L.A. Sheriff's Department that Scott was farming more than 4,000 marijuana plants on his property, thorough search of Scott's property fails to yield any contraband. In fact, Scott's friends would later say he was adamantly opposed to illicit drugs.

Though Scott's grand Malibu ranch is in Ventura County, California, no Ventura police agency was represented among the five police agencies (the L.A. Sheriff's office, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Border Patrol, the National Guard and the National Park Service) that conducted the raid. A blistering subsequent investigation by Ventura County district attorney Michael Bradbury suggests why.

Bradbury found gross misstatements of fact, omissions, and outright falsehoods in the application for a search warrant issued by the L.A. sheriff's department. He found that the department had conducted numerous investigations of the ranch, including flyovers and firsthand visits, which found no evidence of marijuana cultivation. Finally, during a low-level flyover one DEA agent suggested to the sheriff's department that he had spotted some plants beneath tree cover that might be marijuana -- but stipulated that his observation ought not be the basis of a search warrant. On that evidence, the L.A. sheriff's department obtained its warrant.

Bradbury concluded that, confirming Donald Scott's fears, the L.A. sheriff's department conducted its raid for the purpose of seizing Donald Scott's property through drug asset forfeiture laws. Under federal law, the department would have been able divvy up proceeds from the $2.5 million ranch with the four other agencies joining in the investigation. Bradbury found documents in which the investigating agencies had expressed desire for Scott's land on various "wish lists," and one notation in which sheriff's department officials had taken note of the recent sale value of one parcel of Scott's land.

According to an L.A. deputy district attorney at the time, two of the agents conducting the raid posed for a triumphant photograph after Scott was shot and killed.

In January 2000, the L.A. Sheriff's Department settled with Scott's family for $5 million, though the terms of the settlement admitted no wrongdoing. In fact, officers from the department who conducted the raid have insisted from the beginning that both the raid and the shooting of Scott were justified, despite the absence of any illegal substances. L.A. Sheriff's Department Captain Larry Waldie told the Los Angeles Times, "I do not believe it was an illegal raid in any way, shape or form." Five years after the raid, Garry Spencer, the officer who both led the raid and who killed Scott told the same paper, "I don't consider it botched. I wouldn't call it botched because that would say that it was a mistake to have gone there in the first place, and I don't believe that."

Sources:
"Fair End in Police Abuse Case," Los Angeles Times, editorial, January 13, 2000, p. B9.

Or

September 13, 2000—CA


Early in the morning on September 13, 2000, agents from the Drug Enforcement Administration, the FBI, and the Stanislaus County, California drug enforcement agency conduct raids on 14 homes in and around Modesto, California after a 19-month investigation.

According to the Los Angeles Times, the DEA and FBI asked that local SWAT teams enter each home unannounced to secure the area ahead of federal agents, who would then come to serve the warrants and search for evidence. Federal agents warn the SWAT teams that the targets of the warrants, including Alberto Sepulveda's father Moises, should be considered armed and dangerous.

After police forcibly enter the Sepulveda home, Alberto, his father, his mother, his sister, and his brother are ordered to lie face down on the floor with arms outstretched. Half a minute after the raid begins, the shotgun officer David Hawn has trained on Alberto's head discharges, instantly killing the eleven-year-old boy.

No drugs or weapons are found in the home.

The Los Angeles Times later reports that when Modesto police asked federal investigators if there were any children present in the Sepulveda home, they replied, "not aware of any." There were three.

A subsequent internal investigation by the Modesto Police Department found that federal intelligence evidence against Moises Sepulveda -- who had no previous criminal record -- was "minimal." In 2002 he pled guilty to the last charge remaining against him as a result of the investigation -- using a telephone to distribute marijuana. The city of Modesto and the federal government later settled a lawsuit brought by the Sepulvedas for the death of their son for $3 million.

At first, Modesto Police Chief Roy Wasden seemed to be moved by Sepulveda's death toward genuine reform. "What are we gaining by serving these drug warrants?" Wasden is quoted as asking in the Modesto Bee. "We ought to be saying, 'It's not worth the risk. We're not going to put our officers and community at risk anymore.'"

Unfortunately, as part of the settlement with the Sepulvedas, while Modesto announced several reforms in the way its SWAT team would carry out drug raids, there was no mention of discontinuing the use of paramilitary units to conduct no-knock or knock-and-announce warrants on nonviolent drug offenders.

Sources:

Rebecca Trounson, "Deaths raise questions about SWAT teams; Police: Accidents, deaths and raids at wrong addresses put pressure on departments to disband groups. Officers defend paramilitary units as effective when used properly," Los Angeles Times, November 1, 2000, p. A1.

Or

July 8, 2005—FL


In July 2005, a Sarasota, Florida SWAT team conducts a drug raid on a home where several children are playing in the front yard.

The SWAT team descends from a van, deploys flashbang grenades, then swarms the home. 44-year-old Michael Meluzzi, who had a criminal record, begins to flee as he sees the armed agents exit the van. Police chase Meluzzi down and fire a Taser gun at him, partially hitting him.

According to Officer Alan Devaney, Meluzzi then reached into his waistband, leading Devaney to believe he was armed. Devaney opened fire, killing Meluzzi.

Police would find no weapon on or near Meluzzi's body.

Sources:

"Suspect is stunned, then fatally shot, " Associated Press, July 11, 2005.

Latisha R. Gray, "Fatal drug raid raises questions; Residents ask why a SWAT team came in with children present," Sarasota Herald-Tribune, July 31, 2005, p. BS1.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

The_Jazz

OK, good start, but does a botched raid include someone killed in crossfire when the perpetrators open fire? Or when a SWAT officer shoots through a hostage to take out a kidnapper? How about if someone is hit by the SWAT truck on it's way to a raid but miles away? Is that botched?

You still need to refine you terms. As you've done it where the police have made a basic mistake like the wrong address, I would say it is possible that criminal charges should be filed for any deaths, although not necessarily always. Certainly civil redress is appropriate under almost all circumstances.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

dksuddeth

a botched raid would include where anyone is killed except for the known violent perpetrator. This would include anyone who drew a gun or actually fired upon the SWAT team because a 'no knock' raid happened at the wrong house. Unless, of course, you feel that ANY raid by anyone yelling 'police' should be automatically met by submission.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

j8ear

I wonder if your a fan of Radley Balko, DK? He just finished an excellent paper titled "OVERKILL" for the Cato institute...it can be found here.

Essentially I think that one "botched" raid should be punishable. I define "botched" as simply as using a snitch as the exclusive source of securing a warrant.

Unfortunately, police are NEVER punished, and likely never will be as long as existing policies remain unchanged.

It is the policies, however, which cause the problems, and probably very little to do with the police officers who are doing what they are traind to do, and what they are told to do. Punishing them would resolve nothing. Sweeping policy changes are the only effective solution, I think.

Also, as Mr Balko aptly points out, the whole notion of using Swat Teams and no knock raids for non-violent offenders (gamblers, recreational drug users) is absurd, especially considering the rubber stamp warrant process, and the rediculous asset siezure incentives in place, even for raiding the wrong address or an innocent citizen.

-bear

__________________
It's alot easier to ask for forgiveness then it is to ask for permission.

dksuddeth

I am indeed, in fact the examples I used are off of the cato sights raid map at http://www.cato.org/raidmap/

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

j8ear

Solidarity Brother!!!!

-b

__________________
It's alot easier to ask for forgiveness then it is to ask for permission.

Willravel

Maybe we should catagorize:
-Friendly fire
-Collateral Damage
-Accedental shooting due to Neglagence
-Purpousful shooting (Murder)

and add on things like:
-Excessive Force
-Accedental Misinformation
-Purpousful Misinformation
-Coverup


So, for example, the first article from post #3 would be:
-Accedental killing due to gross neglegence
-Excessive Force
-Coverup


I don't think that any acedental deaths are justified. I do believe that in a dangerous business, mistakes can be made...but people should pay for their mistakes. If I spill my milk, then I still have to clean it up, accedent or not. If I (hypothetically a SWAT team member) am conducting a raid and someone who was not a threat to me dies, I must be heald accountable.

Ample

To answer the poll question.. 0, How come that is not an option? I don’t think you can ever justify killing an innocent life, EVER. I think it really depends on the situation if all or any of the blame should go on members of the SWAT team. If they are not given the proper intelligence or intelligence was withheld, and the result of this was innocent people getting killed. Then I would have to say a lot of the blame would have to go on the SWAT leader or his boss. SWAT members are supposed to be elite, they have plenty of training and I’m sure train for just about every scenario possible, that is another reason why I'm not going to give them a pass.

__________________

Her juju beads are so nice
She kissed my third cousin twice
Im the king of pomona