- Jack Vance, The Star King

i say Mr Vang should sue the state and specially the people involved in this particular case.

Knowing how little state of mn settles lawsuit cases for, i think his settlement may be around the $100,000 only.

perhaps he should go all the way thru trial and although the state of MN has immunity, the officers involved can be found guilty if they did not follow proper procedures. from what iv read in the papers, it seems like that may not have happened. the next time swat decides to surprise a “criminal” they may actually make sure its not a innocent citizen sitting down with his family.

-the above statements are solely the opinion of myself and not to be mis-intepreted or reproduced-

Oh. That’s right! He’d probably need a permit…

Of all the cases you’ve evaluated as alawyer, it’s funny you don’t evaluate Mr. Khang’s chances as a plaintiff in your latest comment. Would you care to do that for us now? Or should we assume your lack of evaluation implies the results of such an exercise?

Khang is almost completely SOL, at least based on the facts as presented so far. The officers will surely not be disciplined or punished, Mr. Khang will not be made whole, even if he does get reimbursed for the damage to his home, and so of all the tools a violated homeowner can turn to, not one helps Mr. Khang at all.

It’s true there are immunity doctrines in 1983 and reliance on a valid (though ultimately mistaken) warrant shields a lot of behavior. Even so, unlawful or excessive force ususally presents a fact question, because the threshold and ultimate question is basically the same. Since we know multimillion 1983 verdicts happen frequently, including against SWAT teams, I don’t see why this is not a real tool, even if, like any legal cause of action, it does not work out. Try to sue your insurance company on breach of contract and see how far you get, even though no important interest is involved there, I guess, since we’re talking about the sainted private sector.

I drafted dozens of opinions on 1983 cases when I clerked for a federal judge, have litigated some on the defense side, have evaluted some on the plaintiff’s side, so I do think I know what I’m talking about, but maybe law school dropout Radley and his fanbase know this stuff better than me.

You wrote:

“Besides between motions to supress and Section 1983 lawsuits, there are plenty of tools in an aggreived citizens tool kit if these things go sour.”

Obviously, the motion to suppress is only applicable if charges are brought against the “aggrieved citizen” so that would not apply in cases of innocent people. (Although bonus question for you: let’s say Mr. Vang Khang had some contraband in his bedroom and it was picked up by the police during this mistaken and botched – “sour” – raid, how would a motion to suppress fair in the ensuing criminal case?)

And as for 1983 lawsuits, can you tell me how likely those are to succeed given the high number of “tools” (I think fairly described as “plenty”) available to police and police departments to cloak themselves in various forms of immunity, and other affirmative defenses? How would those immunity doctrines have played themselves out in this scenario? If Mr. Vang Khang is to bring a lawsuit, what is his claim? Chances of success? Or, is he not aggrieved? Or, did this raid not go “sour?”

Lastly, what other “tools,” other than the ones you mentioned, are available to the aggrieved citizen (clue: if you say “filing complaints with the PD/city, that’s the wrong answer)? Or, does 2 (well really 1 and something that only helps one NOT go to jail rather than punish he police or be made whole) count as “plenty?”

In other words, do you have any idea what you’re talking about?

I guess it all goes back to the basic role of the SWAT teams. If you’re in a shootout with terrorists, that guy that bleeds green is your best friend. If you’re trying to serve a run-of-the-mill warrant, I think trying to stay out of trouble around that guy would be quite the distraction.

This whole thing pisses me off. It’s like the perfect storm of libertarian pet peeves.

“I’m getting out because there is no war and no possibility of war. My goal in joining the USMC and going into recon was to kill someone. I’m getting out and am joing the San Diego police Department and going to try to get on the SWAT team. I figure I’ll have a much better chance there.”

This is an ACTUAL conversation I had with this man. You will be happy to know that not only did he get on the San Diego PD, he eventually got on the SWAT team. Of course if he had only known, he could have stayed in the USMC and killed just as many people as his sick, black heart desired…hindsight is 20-20 I guess. Makes me rest easy knowing that him and many more like him are out there.

What’s really unsettling is that fixing the system wouldn’t be very hard. Like Mike above, clearly these teams should be state police for both resource and mobility purposes. Also, something like 4 years in the Marines or a combat MOS in the Army should be highly preferred because veterans apparently have a lot more respect for the use of force than the local yokels. I think if both of those were instituted the problem of bored SWAT teams itching to “serve a warrant” would take care of itself.

Of course, none of that really matters if the press and the local politicicans never ask this one question, “Why is it easier to send 20 people on a raid than to assign two plain-clothes detectives to pick him up at the store?”

Instead of kicking in doors playing breach and the fatal funnel game just wait the criminal out. Eventually you will be able to apprehend them with a “grab” team rather than a SWAT team. It takes a little more planning and surveilence but results in a lot less violence.

These seemingly endless displays of police professionalism stem from lack of training and or experience on the part of SWAT and police-intelligence. Some of these SWAT guys act like cowboys out on their first “round-up” and as for police-intelligence maybe they could get off their “hemorrhoid farms” and actually vet the information before the SWAT cowboys play “round-up” with some innocents.

Justice Scalia must be proud.

That’s all well and good, but there are few police forces that could ever justify having SWAT units in the first place. In Virginia, where I live, there is no reason why any locality should have one. One state SWAT force, divided into 10-20 men for each of the 7 divisions of the Virginia State Police would suffice for our needs.

The police ought to be more creative in how they use force. In Fairfax, they are frequently called out on **any** felon, even if the person was just an average white collar criminal with no history of violence. Look up the case of Salvatore Culosi to understand what I mean.

mike

And these highly-trained, full-time professionals, a credit to their profession, once again kicked in the door of the wrong house, and fired twenty to thirty rounds into the house without even once hitting the guy that they were, one would trust, trying to shoot. (One would, I hope, expect that this stack of highly-trained professionals in their black hoods [err...excuse me: balaclavas] would not be shooting up the house out of panic, but would have fired each and ever shot aimed at the person that they intended to stop, wouldn’t one?)

What’s wrong with this picture?

I don’t agree with the current use of these SWAT teams and think it’s a huge waste of time, manpower, money and has shown it will bring nothing but heartache when they are conducted with poor information and training. These raids need to be stopped immediately for non-violent offenses. Period.

I have a friend who works in a printing company and he gave me a book called “S.W.A.T. – S.R.T. Instructional Manual for Tactical Teams”, written by Steven Matoon. His company was contracted to print this book for the various SWAT teams in Minnesota. Some very interesting reading. Especially the section on what terms to use when dealing with the press. Instead of “Defensive Fire”, it suggests using the term “Officer Safety Techniques”, or the terms “Injure, Hurt, Cripple” should be changed to “Handcuff, Restrain, Subdue”. There is quite a list of them, arranged in a “Do Use/Do Not Use” type section. Entertaining and scary. Oh yea. The front cover also has a big banner on it saying “Restricted Sale”. (My friend was kind enough to present it to me as a gift from the print run, as I could not have bought it legally.)

I do have a shotgun in my apartment that I hope to never use. I decided a long time ago to have some sort of protection against those who would try to harm me or my loved ones, and I sleep better at night knowing it is available for such an emergency. Not a “gun-nut” or survivalist, but I do think the way things are going that having some form of protection is prudent.

Next thing the Monkey is compelled to do is brush aside this “isolated incident” describing Criminal Informants as “scumbag CIs” to us. (Yet, make no doubt, when applying for a warrant these “scumbags” are described as a “reliable witness.”)

Monkey’s brain than moves on to defend the use of SWAT raids, describing pit bulls “whimpering in the corner covered in their own urine.” (Increased SWAT raids designed around a politicians re-election campaign, unmentioned.)

Finally the monkey calls for more funding/training for SWAT teams, (his entire 5th paragraph).

As for monkey’s last paragraph: I will do him the favor of not condemning all SWAT teams to be composed of men as ignorant as him. (SWAT Monkey, you are a puppet. Keep carrying the biggest stick, YOU need it).

The police tell us:

“Look, these dynamic entries are the safest thing for us. By deploying flash bombs, coming in with massive numbers, and creating pure confusion and disorientation we are able to take control of the situation.”

Then they fuck up. And it becomes:

“Well, they should have known it was the police because we did announce.”

Which is it?