TheAgitator.com
Militarization Stuff
Monday, February 25th, 2008Yonkers man claims he was shot three times during a drug raid. The police found a small amount of drugs, and killed the man’s three dogs. Not saying this guy’s innocent, or even that he’s telling the truth. Just another unnecessarily violent raid to enforce a consensual crime.
Also, good work from a local television station looking into the wrong-door raid on a Minnesota Hmong family late last year. Looks as though the police did little to no corroborating investigation on the initial tip. It also looks as if, contrary to what they’ve claimed, there was no announcement before they began the raid.
It’s standard in cases like this to do surveillance outside a house and check for any police calls to the address.
Investigators also could have run a simple property search online and learned that the Khang family owned the house on Logan Avenue since moving there four years ago.
So far, the I-TEAM has found no evidence that any of those steps were taken on the Logan Avenue house to confirm the information provided by Brown’s girlfriend.
Finally, here’s a sensible column from the Virginian-Pilot’s Roger Chesley on the Frederick/Shivers raid.
UPDATE: Link fixed.
The “sensible column” link is wrong, methinks…
Officer: Well, I didn’t really want to get shot in the face with a shotgun today either. But I guess we don’t get what we want sometimes.
Well, maybe next time you’ll make sure you’re going to the right place, first.
Or maybe you’ll just set the house on fire from the outside. That would certainly make it safer for the police.
Also, your third link (about Fredericks) goes to the second link about the Khang family.
Once again, a raid conducted on little to no investigation.
I am really hoping the news media will keep on investigating and reporting on these raids. I believe change will come only when the people of this nation are truly informed about what is going on. And what better way than the media?
I wish I had more of a law background. I find it interesting that the police can use a CI and the judge will generally sign a warrant permitting, what could be legally described as, hearsay. If hearsay is not generally permissible in court, why would it ever be allowed in a court ordered warrant? I know the CI has to sign an affidavit (as far as I know) but if an imminent warrant is being issued, I’d rather have the CI testifying directly to the judge rather than through a written affidavit.
Colson,
In many places, you do have to bring the CI to court and the judge gets to ask questions directly to the CI if he/she choices. I think that is a better system as you do.
In the Fredrick column Chesley stated that police were in Fredrick’s home to “look for drugs.” I could see how an outsider reading the story would say, “Oh, well the police were there to look for drugs, and the police found drugs, so the police must be right.”
It’s so important to note that the police weren’t there looking for a small baggy of cannabis. They were there looking for a major grow operation. There was no major grow operation. There was no grow operation. The entire warrant was based on a LIE.
If the cops want to deflect blame, something they LOVE to do, they should try directing it at the lying SOB informant. Of course the informant’s testimony was probably coerced as well. So that isn’t an option.
Yes, something that we need to keep on – the police did not find what they went there for. The warrant was for a major indoor growing operation, something which didn’t exist at that address. The fact that they found some marijuana isn’t relevant. What they found was misdemeanor possession, equal to a speeding ticket.
The 13 member police SWAT team thought they had a Milk Run laid on for this No-Knock night-time raid.
Instead, they ran into a citizen who awoke quickly when alarmed, armed himself, and defended his property from what he thought was a home invasion.
The confidential informant is at the core of the bad information that the police used to get their warrant.
That, and their utter laziness to investigate the alleged marijuana grower before applying for a No-Knock warrant.
Of course they are trying to railroad the shooter. He made them look incompetent. And, stupid.
“The CS” – presumably confidential source – “has provided information to the Chesapeake Police Department in the past, which has proven to be reliable and accurate. The CS has also given members of the Special Investigations Section information, which has proven to be reliable and accurate. The CS has made several controlled purchases of narcotics with your Affiant.”
The police love the term “reliable and accurate” but what does it mean? I suspect what the warrent said and what is actually found is usually something greatly different. But if it gets a conviction, most likely falls in the accurate column.
Perhaps legislatures need to reinforce the Fourth Amendment by adding an additional requirement: warrants must be supported by oath or affirmation by one or more persons with personal knowledge sufficient to constitute probable cause. Under present practice, it seems like an oath that the sky is blue, could be combined with a bunch of information that isn’t given under oath so as to get a warrant. Clearly such a reading of the Fourth Amendment renders it meaningless, but that nonetheless seems to be how courts read it.
I find it interesting that this sort of stuff is quite common in states where the rule of law is whatever the cops say it is…like VA, FL, etc…Not to say that this sort of crap doesn’t happen in California. I wonder what the major differences are that make CA less likely for this to happen? (we’ll ignore for now that California cops, specifically LAPD have their own issues…)
Instead, they ran into a citizen who awoke quickly when alarmed, armed himself, and defended his property from what he thought was a home invasion.
It was a home invasion.
I am not sure this is the place to point this out, but a policeman in the DC Metro area was found guilty of manslaughter and a host of other crimes this week in connection of an incident involving him and two men delivering furniture to his house. He was convicted despite the best efforts of the local political machine and police department to shield him not only from the consequences of his actions in this case, but of all the incidents of his out of control temper before the shooting. I lived in DC when the event happened, but have moved away. I remember the police and the Prince George’s County politicians doing everything they could to blame these two deliverymen (students working their way through college as I recall) and portraying this rage ridden cop as the victim. Well he is going to jail now. I think they were even considering this bottle of rage for a post in the local Homeland Security apparatus.
There is a good editorial in today’s Wapo. While it does a good job of castigating the PG County machine for coddling this thug, I have a question for the class. If a cop is a cop when he kills someone (off duty or on) shouldn’t henceforth always be referred to as a cop? The Wapo insists upon labeling him as an ex-cop and that, to me, gives the reader the impression the guy was not a cop when he committed the crime. It gives them a patina of competence they don’t deserve. THis guy was a cop with a gun and a shield when he killed one innocent man and crippled another for life. The public needs that drilled into them everyt ime they read about it.
There are statistics for how likely it is for a cop to die in the line of duty. I wonder how that would compare against a statistic on how likely it is for a cop to accidentally (or negligently) kill an innocent civilian. I don’t just mean during raids. I would include high speed chases, jail house beatings, taserings, etc.