I don’t wish to belabor this, so I cited only one of a large number of indicators (to me), that the officers that have testified aren’t (and I’ll be kind) being entirely “forthcoming.”

I also tend (being somewhat logical in my reasoning) to view things in terms of “gain” – i.e. what do these officers have to gain, by giving the impression that they were right and righteous?

(I leave that to your deliberation.)

Conversely, what would Mr. Frederick’s neighbors have to gain (if their testimony refutes that of the police), by giving the impression that the police are lying, and that Mr. Frederick is right and righteous?

(Again, I leave that to your deliberation.)

Pax

I apologize for calling you a schmuck.

As far as phrases and terminology used by the officers that are similar or identical; it begins in the police academy when they are required to know, verbatim, the definition of probable cause and reasonable suspicion. The “totality of the circumstances” is everything collected by the senses, experienced in the past, learned through training, etc. that can lead an experienced law enforcement officer to reach a conclusion that a lay person would not have reached if merely observing the same incident. Everything must be brought together to meet the probable cause or reasonable suspicion threshold – the totality of the circumstances. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don’t.

I’m sure your career field in the Navy (and even in IT) had terminology and phrases that every one of your co-workers would have used if asked a similar set of questions about a similar incident or set of circumstances. Is that a reasonable assumption? The use of similar or even identical terminology is a product of training and experience, not conspiracy.

The reason that I used “obtuse,” was to force you to find a dictionary – so that when you looked up “obtuse,” you’d feel, “stupid.”

That particular posting was in response to your referring to me as a “schmuck,” which means “clumsy, stupid and obnoxious.” I may be obnoxious (when provoked) but I’m certainly not clumsy or stupid. Keep in mind that you are the one that resorted to name-calling, which usually makes a person appear ignorant.

You opened the door – I simply slammed it in your face…

Let me ask you this – who the fuck uses a term like, “totality of the event?”

Answer: Captain Dunlap, Det. Roberts, Det. Barone, Sgt. Chambers, and Det. Walker. Hmm…

Five people in a row, using the same unusual term, for describing an event…
Hmm…

Might they all be reciting from the same script? But hey, I’ve never been in Law Enforcement, so what the fuck do I know?

(Am I going too fast for you? No? Good…)

It’s true, I’ve never been in Law Enforcement. However, six years as a military air traffic controller, and 20 years in data processing (designing, writing and maintaining computer software systems), does afford me a vast background and experience in mental agility and acuity, as well as the ability to process and analyze information.

Or, the short version – don’t try to bullshit me – you’ll regret it…

As far as being pissed off at anyone who doesn’t agree with me is concerned, I believe you’re confusing me with yourself – the fact of the matter, is that the majority of people
in Chesapeake ALREADY agree with me. It is the police who are the bad guys…

I’m looking at the situation in a strictly cold and analytical fashion – they same way that I designed computer systems – purely logical, no emotion necessary. It is YOU, who are getting upset, because for the first time, the CPD does not have carte blanche (freedom to do as it pleases), it is being called upon to explain and justify its actions – and it doesn’t know how…
Pax

Apparently, I’m neither as intelligent nor as educated as you. I did not know either was a prerequistite to post on this blog. I apologize. You are “obtuse” (who the f*ck talks like that?) in that you are ignorant as to what it is like to be a law enforcement officer or vice and narcotics detective, yet you feel able to judge their moral character based on this case and this case alone. You know nothing about these people as individuals or how they have spent their careers, yet they are corrupt to you. My “drift” is apparently understood all to well because it pisses you off that someone dare to offer something other than total agreement with you. You don’t see justification, yet you are not a law enforcement officer. You think it was excessive, yet you don’t know what these law enforcement officers have faced before. Do you know how many LODD there have been during the commission of search warrants, how may injuries, how many shooting incidents? You don’t know. Yet you judge their tactics. Could this one incident, or many of the others that Radley highlights, been done differently? Yes, as I’ve said in above posts. I don’t disagree with much of your sentiment, it is your conclusions on the character of these individual officers that I disagree with. Take that for what it may be worth to you. Nothing, I’m sure, coming from me since your mind is made up.

So, if I take your meaning correctly, as long as your written contributions are not being graded, it is perfectly acceptable to you, for you to put your regrettable English skills on public display…

I’m not altogether sure what “drift” of yours that I’m getting – in the Navy, we used the term “drifty” to describe someone who was, “a few fries short of a happy meal” (so to speak). Is that what you’re referring to?

Also, I’m a little unclear about what advice of mine that I can use, although I suppose I should be flattered that you feel that my advice is of some value…

Yes, my mind is made up, as is yours (although not since the day after the raid). I see no justification for the manner in which this raid was conducted (a heavily armed mob descending on a flea with a pop-gun). I agree absolutely with Doc Tabor (and many others) that these types of raids are extreme, inherently dangerous and unnecessary in almost all real-world circumstances. Around the country, many serious injuries and deaths have resulted from these types of police raids being conducted – in almost all of these cases, a less “feeding frenzied” approach, by the police, would have resulted in reaching the objective, without the loss of life and limb…

(BTW – “To protect and serve” includes the ungodly, as well as law abiding citizens…)

To dispense with any false impressions that you may have, I hold Professional Law Enforcement Officers in the very highest esteem – it’s the wannabe storm troopers that find their way into most Police Departments, that I have a problem with…

Finally, read Doc Tabors article again, you’ll discover that I am named as the person who will be providing Doc Tabor with an account of what takes place (taking copious notes, as it were) – he will be writing it up, in his usual well-considered and reasonable fashion.

Pax

“Wouldn’t you ask how he saw the marijuana? How he had access to the house? Wouldn’t you ask how he knew about the burglary?”

Do we know that they didn’t ask such questions? And if they did, do we know his responses? I think these things will be cleared up next week. Aren’t “both” informants supposed to testify?

The burglary? Well, although the State can bring charges on felony matters on behalf of the victim, they still need a victim. It was just in court the other day that the defense admitted Frederick grew marijuana. Before then, I don’t think Ryan was willing to say yes, what was stolen from my house in the burglary was my marijuana plants. And, you’re assuming he wasn’t asked if he wanted to prosecute. Maybe that question will be answered at the trial as well.

It’s difficult to imagine that being as obtuse as you clearly are that you possess sufficient brain function to wiggle your fingers and toes. Let me ask you this – are you typing with your nose?

BTW – you need to work on your usage and spelling – fucking up a three-letter word like “too” is embarrassing…

The term “cops” is rather vague. I like peace officers, mildly dislike rev’nooers (but recognize that when well-behaved they serve a necessary function), and despise totalitarian anarchists. Do you feel any loyal citizen of the U.S. should not regard those three groups the same way?

2) According to yesterday’s post, court testimony said that the fact that Mr. Frederick was worried that burglars might return played a role in the raid planning. Unless the cops are total morons, they should know that breaking into the dwelling of a man who has particular reason to fear burglary will be dangerous to all concerned.

3) Do you suppose that James Madison just wanted to waste ink when he wrote the “oath or affirmation” language? Can you offer any scenario, under your interpretation, in which cops would be able to receive a warrant in the absence of that language which they could not receive in its presence? If not, what is the purpose of such language?

4) So the cops intended to do hundreds of dollars of damage to the guy’s home, and endanger the lives of many people, for a crime whose punishment–if convicted–would likely be less severe than what they they plan to inflict before they even have cause to arrest?

//Oh yeah, he was shot attempting to enforce the law. Maybe that has something to do with peace to.//

His law, perhaps. But THE law? The one that starts “We the People of the United States of America”?

He and his associates undertook a course of action that they knew would put numerous people in mortal peril. Please explain why either (1) their course of action was substantially preferable to other obvious courses of action which would have been safer for everyone, or (2) the police action was reasonable even though it wasn’t preferable to other courses of action.

The Constitution states that unreasonable searches and/or seizures are illegitimate. I would regard the police behavior in this case as being highly unreasonable, and find it hard to imagine anyone but a totalitarian anarchist doing otherwise.

2) “Known” nothing is ever known, only after it happens does it become known. Are there risks associated with things, yes. Again and again, I’ve said I thought it could have been done differently – are you reading my whole post or just the parts that piss you off?

3) Informants don’t swear to a thing. They provide info. the detective swears in his affadavit that the informant has been reliable in the past so he must be reliable now.

4) Not even that: First offender status, taken under advisement, dismissed after a year or something like that. I know.

56) Was not meant for you, but for post #56 the guy who hates cops. Do you hate cops?

2) If a particular proposed course of action is known to put numerous people in mortal peril, and there exists another obvious course of action which would not, can the first course of action be considered reasonable without some clear basis for believing it superior to the second? If not, then what clear basis would exist to justify the raid as conducted?

3) What, if anything, did the informant actually swear to? Normal procedure is to mostly ignore the oath or affirmation requirement and give the judge a bunch of unsworn garbage hearsay, but then give a slight nod to the Constitution by offering sworn testimony about some personal observation by the officer. A cop shouldn’t accept the fact that a cop saw unspecified “suspicious traffic patterns” near a house as probable cause to search it, but technically that’s a judgment call. On the other hand, I’m unaware of the cops in this case having offered up even that.

4) What is the typical sentence for a first-time offender for possession of less than an ounce of pot? I’d be surprised if the typical sentence in such a case would be more than the $400+ that some places charge for photo tickets.

56) I like and appreciate peace officers. I despise totalitarian anarchists. Was the decedent in this case shot while he was performing CPR, delivering a baby, or acting like a peace officer? Or was he shot when he was acting like a burglar?

He was arrested on felony credit card theft and fraud charges three days before the raid. Those charges were dropped in the weeks following the raid. Some were then reinstated several months later.

Why is it unreasonable to believe that this guy spun a yarn that the police believed?

You wouldn’t be suspicions if your informant came to you and said, “Yeah, he had marijuana in there. Also, someone broke into his house the same night. But it wasn’t me.”

Wouldn’t you ask how he saw the marijuana? How he had access to the house? Wouldn’t you ask how he knew about the burglary?

Moreover, since he has since admitted to burglarizing Frederick’s home, why hasn’t he been charged for that crime?

Seems to me the most likely explanation is that they know they’ll lose his cooperation if they charge him with a crime they asked him to commit–or at least consented to him committing?

1) Would you be that stupid? If it’s too good to be true it usually is and all that.

2) No, as I thought I mentioned in my above post about not agreeing with how this went down, but that it was not done contrary to law and established practice across this country.

3) All affadavits for search warrants are sworn to. The probable cause was apparently soley the word of a “reliable” informant. I think it can be found on the Virginia Pilot’s archives somewhere. So, that burden was met. Sufficiently, in your opinion not, in the magistrate’s? yes.

4) In the state of Virginia possession of marijuana is a class 1 misdemeanor punishable by up to a $2500 fine and/or 12 months in jail. Not the same as a red light ticket.

#56) You hate all cops? None of them have ever done you or anyone you know right? Never saw footage of a cop risking his life to save a stranger? Never heard of cops stopping crimes in progress and protecting the lives of innocent citizens? Never heard of cops performing CPR or delivering babies on the side of the interstate or diffusing suicidal situations? Nothing? None of that? Go run for office in Mexico, they need you.

-1- If police find a stolen television set worth $1,000 in my house and I tell them I had no idea the guy who sold it to me, for $50 cash and from the back of his car, had stolen it, do you think they’d believe me? Or would they say that I should have known that it was most likely stolen and my deliberate blindness to that fact is no defense?

-2- Can you explain why a bash-in raid would not be more dangerous to everyone and more damaging to the target’s property than conducting the search in civilized fashion, especially given that the suspected contraband was in the garage rather than the house? If the raid wasn’t important enough to justify doing some real police work, it wasn’t important to justify the reckless endangerment of everyone’s life including the target.

-3- The Constitution states that no legitimate warrant may be issued except probable cause which is supported by oath or affirmation (ergo, any warrant issued without meeting such requirement is void). Judges often let their determination of probable cause be swayed by garbage hearsay, but usually there’s at least some sworn evidence even if it’s a vague statement about unspecified “unusual traffic patterns” or some such nonsense. Did the police in this case offer even one iota of probable cause supported by oath or affirmation?

-4- I don’t know about the particular laws where Mr. Frederick lives, but my impression is that in some places a red-light camera ticket carries a higher fine than a possessing the amount of pot that Mr. Frederick had. So should anyone who’s ever cut a light a little close have to worry about the police bashing in their door?

Asking the CI to bring the plants to the police would in fact mean he stole them and was acting on behalf of the police. They assert he was not. They assert he provided information and information only and since he was reliable before, they used it in their affadavit for the search warrant. We know, based on testimony, that they did ask, what 15 times, if he was the burglar… we don’t know what was asked or how. Was it incredulous, “What do you mean there was a burglary, did you do it? You did it didn’t you! Why did you do it? Do you know who did it? Where’d the plants go? Are there any left?” I don’t know. Why is it unreasonable to believe that this guy spun a yarn that the police believed? Again, he was considered reliable, included in an affadavit and approved my a magistrate. That is the threshold the police had to meet and apparently, to that magistrate, they did.

As for his felony charges, were they pending before this incident or after? I don’t know. If he was arrested on them after, that is moot to this discussion I think. He IS a criminal informant, i.e. a criminal, after all.

You forgot to mention that the police knew he had a gun. Talk to any cop, when that information is known, it changes the equation a bit. They announced themselves and waited in a fashion deemed reasonable by the Supreme Court and then decided to force entry. At 8 p.m., not 3 a.m. Unfortunately, if he came out of his room at the 15 second mark, stretching and yawning, I don’t know if they would have hit the door anyway or not. But, they performed in a manner accepted by the courts and done everyday. That is really what the problem is. Not that they did it, but that it is allowed.

Just because someone doesn’t have a criminal record does not = no risk, it = unknown risk, and precautions will be taken by the police (the use of forced entry tactics being one of them). As far as Ryan’s relationship with the CI or anyone else for that matter, you know what you’ve been told, maybe it’s true, maybe not. You’re on their side (or you’re on the side of more restrained tactics, obviously). They want to tell you things favorable to them. And Radley, just because a million people do it, doesn’t mean the police should ignore it. Keep doing what you’re doing and I think things will change. The police are working within parameters deemed acceptable by many (not all – I peruse these blogs afterall) members of the public, the courts and the lawmakers.

I think a manslaughter conviction is the likely outcome of this incident. Maybe Frederick won’t get much more than time served. We’ll see. I hope the CPD has learned and will adapt, but still, I don’t think they are corrupt.