69 yr old homeowner opened fire during no-knock police raid on his home

reply to post by faivious


Never forget that he was not convicted of selling prescription drugs: He was accused by one CI. There was no due process here, no trial by a jury of his peers. Everything our legal system has embodied since the Magna Carta was thrown out here in favor of a militarized death squad, who burst in and killed a 69 year old man in his own home, on the accusation of 1 other person.

That's how far down the rabbit hole the cops were / are on this one.

They could have sent 1 or 2 plain clothes detectives to inquire about his pills, but instead, they engaged in state sanctioned thrill-murder.

Originally posted by ProphecyPhD

Originally posted by kro32
Once again people are taking this way out of context.

Taking from the op's sources.

The raid happened at 10 a.m.

There was a search warrant issued.

It was not a no-knock search warrant.

The police did knock and identify themselves before entry.

They were meant with deadly force

They responded per regulations

So what is the problem?

I'm not a police lover but this seems pretty much cut and dry. The police had a warrant (no knock or not) and the man shot at them. Protest no knock warrants if you're mad but he shot at them and they shot back. Cut and Dry.

It is cut and dry. The cops decided they would "protect the public" by saving them from them self. And then, yet another person ends up stone cold dead on the war against the public. And of course this is "no big deal" and "just another mistake" to some people. You think its just dandy when someone ends up dead to "save others"? How many have been "saved from them self" using the war on drugs do you figure? Do the math Mr. PhD. How much good is yet another government war nobody asked for with yet another tens of thousands dead?

How many dead does it take for you to realize its a fool's game to try to pretend we own other people's bodies and the items they decide to ingest? Or perhaps its not about doing good for you but rather controlling others and asserting your dominance, just like it is for the cops who also just don't care?

Originally posted by kro32
reply to post by ProphecyPhD

 

Nothing in the articles states he had a hearing problem however.

This guy was selling drugs to supplement his income and probably decided to suicide by cop once he got busted.

or.....

probably not

I've said it before, but I had a friend that was home invaded by a bunch of guys in Swat/Police shirts/outfits. He was robbed at gunpoint & had his Escalade stolen.

It's the same reason you don't blindly pull over for a cop.. you find a well lit area at night and make sure they're legit.

You don't get that luxury when they're kicking in your down with guns drawn.

This was just a tragedy, I can't see blaming the police though it looks like they did everything that was reqiured of them under the law. I also can't blame the old man, I probably would have done the same with all the home invasions lately. Just a tragedy all the way around in this case.

sorry but I don't buy what 6 got your back hommies say about someone - I believe the witnesses that say they kicked the door in. For one simple reason a warrant means they stop at the front door they don't enter unless they have additional cause.

If he did shoot at them he would have shot through the door at which point unsure of the situation in the house they would have retreated and notified swat for assistance.

That's what makes sense unless it really was a no knock warrant they really did go in the front door and he really did shoot at them. Either way a man is dead over a few pills. And given his previous employment garners an automatic level of respect.

Originally posted by 0zzymand0s
reply to post by faivious

 

Never forget that he was not convicted of selling prescription drugs: He was accused by one CI. There was no due process here, no trial by a jury of his peers. Everything our legal system has embodied since the Magna Carta was thrown out here in favor of a militarized death squad, who burst in and killed a 69 year old man in his own home, on the accusation of 1 other person.

That's how far down the rabbit hole the cops were / are on this one.

They could have sent 1 or 2 plain clothes detectives to inquire about his pills, but instead, they engaged in state sanctioned thrill-murder.

edit on 7-7-2011 by 0zzymand0s because: (no reason given)

Not once on any of these cases have I heard any cites as to what intelligence they have to even warrant a search on the house.

I mean, if you know that a guy is dangerous enough to take on 6 militarized officers at 10 A.M., you must have significant info about the guy to know how he acts right? What he's dealing, when he does it, who to, how often, what amounts?

I think it should be mandatory to inform us (the public) of what methods were used to access a warrant, especially if acting on that warrant results in the death of a citizen, where presumably no charges could have been filed regardless. Did they scope out the house with squad cars, track deals happening actively, did detectives question informants thoroughly?

Like was mentioned earlier, whatever happened to setting up stings and catching people in the act, rather than with their pants down in a highly volatile, risky, high-energy situation where ANYTHING could happen to either party...

My god I mean to add it's a MIRACLE bystanders and innocents around the house weren't injured! Not only is a presumably innocent man dead over the drug war, the police found no inclination he was dealing, he only had in his house a normal amount of prescriptions for assorted health issues... but a girl walking behind the house is nearly hit by a stray bullet?!? A no-knock warrant in the middle of the morning where kids may be playing, curious, not paying attention, even visiting this neighbor perhaps?

reply to post by Dembow


While I am sure that some criminals in the US do this, I have never heard of it happening to an innocent person. That's not to say it hasn't happened, it's just to show how unlikely it is to happen to someone. But let's say the guy is innocent, wasn't doing drugs. Why open fire? Because it was other criminals busting down his door with weapons? Interesting. Seems that firing upon them would likely get you killed. Doesn't seem like a reasonable person would start to open fire even in that situation. Now, we have to throw in the fact that this is not a common occurrence. Of course it happens, but its no where near as common as cops coming to your house and busting in your door with a warrant. So, its merely a very very slight possibility that you will be dealing with criminals. Either way, there is nothing reasonable about firing upon armed people who bust into your house wearing police uniforms.

The Law in the US regarding warrants states that cops do NOT have to knock in announce in a few situations. Two of those situations are where the evidence is easily destructible and knocking and announcing would likely be a situation where the evidence could be destroyed are involved or where the officers are likely to encounter violence. The encountering violence exception applies to drug cases as well. The evidence destruction was created in response to drugs as well. So, to sum, when the officers are coming with a valid search warrant, they have an absolute right to bust in your door and just charge in to your house.

I personally believe that this guy was likely guilty and knew that the cops were there to bust him. He probably did not want to spend the rest of his life in prison so he opened fire. Remember, the cops didn't just randomly think he dealt drugs, they had probable cause. The probable cause was determined to exist by a neutral judge. So, this is the most likely scenario. And even if he didn't do the crime, who the hell opens fire when it is just one guy with a gun versus a gaggle of officers with guns?

reply to post by HappilyEverAfter


That's a fact. it's 180 degrees away from when I was born, even. To take it further, it's 180 degrees away from when I took my own police training, which was 27 years ago. I wouldn't be a cop today for love nor money.

Don't get me wrong - I respect the police in general, and have a pretty good relationship with most. It's just that the some of the things they are tasked to do today are not just wrong, they're dead wrong, and completely go against my grain. In fact, some of those things would have gotten the average Joe arrested and thrown UNDER the jail back in the day, and it's just not fitting for the police to be the ones doing them now.

I absolutely could not, with a clear conscience, arrest anyone else for doing something that I myself might have to do. I see a major problem with that, a sort of conflict of interest.

Frequently, the local police station themselves in the parking lot across the street from my house, facing it. I have no problem with that. Some folks get paranoid as can be about it, but it doesn't bother me at all. They're not watching ME, they're keeping an eye on the neighborhood (which isn't the best), and it's added security to me that they do it from right in front of my house.

Improves response times.

Last Sunday, around midnight, I got a knock on the door. That just ain't no time to be answering a knock at the door around here, so I went to an observation point to find out just who thought it was a good time to visit. I saw a couple of cop cars in front of the house, so I went to the door, and there was about 4 car loads of them waiting patiently.

That's the way it should be.

They were waiting out of the line of fire from the doorway, which is prudent in my book, and I didn't have a problem with that, either. I wasn't freaked out, because they had the civility to handle it in a rational manner, and they weren't freaked out because they know enough about me that we have an understanding, and it works for both parties. We had a little pow wow, and everyone left it happy. It turned out that some jackass had reported trouble at my address, and they came a-running.

Makes me feel better to know they're on the job and on the ball, and it pisses me off that some jackass thought it'd be a good idea to file a false report to distract them. They just made sure I was armed in case trouble came, and everyone parted happy and whole. As an aside, around that same time some guy did a real home invasion somewhere here in town, raped and abducted a woman, took her to his house, and raped her some more. He's in jail now - he was arrested the next day - but how might it have gone different if those cops hadn't been distracted by a false report? We'll never know, but it bothers me.

My whole point of that story, though, is that the constabulary acted in a civilized manner with me, I acted civil, and it was a happy ending for everyone at my humble abode. It could have gone sideways in a hell of a hurry had anyone behaved differently, or if I hadn't seen the marked cars out front.

It could have gone sideways as well if someone actually HAD succeeded in invading my house - those cops were loaded for bear, and ready to rumble, and as I mentioned home invasions aren't unknown here. Had anyone else gone to the door, or gone to the door hot, they were situated and prepared to handle them roughly, either front door or back. They were ready for a "breaker", but didn't OVER react, nor did they UNDER react, given the nature of the beast.

In my opinion, the Hampton cops handled that situation extremely poorly. There was simply no need to act like that, and now a man is dead because they thought themselves to be Rambo or Secret Squirrel. I don't know if it was poor training or poor planning, but I suspect it was a combination of both.

Sure, we have a few a-hole cops here, but the majority are on an even keel, and we're all damned glad of it. It works for everyone here, cops and citizens alike. That's here, though. I think nationwide, on average, "Secret Squirrel Rambo cops" are on a steep rise, and when that happens, situations like the Hampton event are bound to happen.

No one should be happy about that.

Originally posted by Ryanp5555
reply to post by Dembow

 

While I am sure that some criminals in the US do this, I have never heard of it happening to an innocent person. That's not to say it hasn't happened, it's just to show how unlikely it is to happen to someone. But let's say the guy is innocent, wasn't doing drugs. Why open fire? Because it was other criminals busting down his door with weapons? Interesting. Seems that firing upon them would likely get you killed. Doesn't seem like a reasonable person would start to open fire even in that situation. Now, we have to throw in the fact that this is not a common occurrence. Of course it happens, but its no where near as common as cops coming to your house and busting in your door with a warrant. So, its merely a very very slight possibility that you will be dealing with criminals. Either way, there is nothing reasonable about firing upon armed people who bust into your house wearing police uniforms.

I think you're wrong there - DEAD wrong - but it could be that I'm just not reasonable. If ANYONE kicks in my door, there's going to be lead flying, and damn the torpedos. They are NOT gaining entry unopposed. That's how trusting souls get raped and killed without ever even getting a chance to put up a fight.

I personally believe that "reasonable" involves a requirement to behave as if one lives in a civilized society, not like barbarians out in the jungle. Treat me in a civil manner, and it's all good, no one has to die. Handle it otherwise, and a bad day will be had by all, and I really don't care if I DO get killed. Some things are WORTH dying for, and defense of one's self, family, home, and rights are among those things.

I want nothing to do with a man who has not the cojones to defends his own. As I said before, a home invasion is a home invasion, badge or not. They're fast and violent, and I'm not stopping to check the playbook if one goes down here, nor am I just going to take a shouted word for it that it really IS cops when my own door is getting kicked in.

The Law in the US regarding warrants states that cops do NOT have to knock in announce in a few situations. Two of those situations are where the evidence is easily destructible and knocking and announcing would likely be a situation where the evidence could be destroyed are involved or where the officers are likely to encounter violence. The encountering violence exception applies to drug cases as well. The evidence destruction was created in response to drugs as well. So, to sum, when the officers are coming with a valid search warrant, they have an absolute right to bust in your door and just charge in to your house.

Nope.That's not a right, it's a law, and sometimes the twain just don't meet. I have a right to be secure in my self, my home, and my effects, period, and no law has ever been written which can trump a right

I think they ought to pass another law that this law be engraved prominently on the tombstone of everyone killed in the commission of such lunacy.

I personally believe that this guy was likely guilty and knew that the cops were there to bust him. He probably did not want to spend the rest of his life in prison so he opened fire. Remember, the cops didn't just randomly think he dealt drugs, they had probable cause. The probable cause was determined to exist by a neutral judge. So, this is the most likely scenario. And even if he didn't do the crime, who the hell opens fire when it is just one guy with a gun versus a gaggle of officers with guns?

As to the first part, that's pure speculation, and I've been getting pretty worn out lately by the blind willingness of some to throw away the lives of OTHERS based upon sheer speculation.

"Probable cause" can be pretty damned thin and forced some times.

As to the last part, I will, and so will a lot of other folks who just haven't been dropped in that particular pot of grease as yet. Outnumbered or not, I'm not going quietly into that gentle night. You can take THAT to the bank, and have it engraved on my headstone as well, because it's the gospel truth.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Hillbilly123069

 

The officers say they knocked and had a warrant. So I'd like to know why we are taking any one else's opinion seriously without them actually being there.

Well, now, that justifies everything. Knock Knock. Door smashes open. Bang Bang. Homeowner is dead. Cops: "But we had a warrant that says we get to kill him if he doesn't immediately offer us warm coffee and a donut!"

reply to post by dubiousone


No, that's not what's on a warrant. But if he was shooting back, that's simply he's response. Who knows. Maybe he was senial, maybe he had bad times in a war. All I know is that they fired back, and by the sounds of it, pretty hard. I don't see anything to judge the police wrong. Innocent until proven guilty. By the sounds of it, a lot of evidence says the old guy was wrong.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by dubiousone

 

No, that's not what's on a warrant. But if he was shooting back, that's simply he's response. Who knows. Maybe he was senial, maybe he had bad times in a war. All I know is that they fired back, and by the sounds of it, pretty hard. I don't see anything to judge the police wrong. Innocent until proven guilty. By the sounds of it, a lot of evidence says the old guy was wrong.

Of course not. But the cops acted pretty much as though that's what it directed them to do. Did they misread the warrant or fail to comprehend the scope of what it authorized them to do? Did it say, "Break in suddenly, with guns drawn and ready to fire"?

It would be great if someone could get a copy of the warrant and post it here for all to see. I'd like to see what they claim their confidential informant told them about the citizen they killed, what they did to check and verify what the c.i. told them, and what peaceful measures they used to arrest the man before they went Rambo on him.

They must be seriously preparing to issue hundreds of thousands of no knock search warrants to drag familys into FEMA camps & this is practice, theres just no explanation for why all these insanely retarded swat murders keep occuring im not even in the US and i see plenty here on ATS every week, its disgusting and i dont think these police men should be treated with any respect at all, who the f**k thinks of a 69yr old man possibly selling prescription medication as any kind of threat !?? why they even needed a swat team for this insanely uncomprehendable situation, is beyond any civilised human being.

reply to post by dubiousone


Well there you are assuming a number of things, most importantly that they even contacted him before he went rambo. For all we know, the old guy saw police and simply opened fire irregardless.

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by Ryanp5555
reply to post by Dembow

 

While I am sure that some criminals in the US do this, I have never heard of it happening to an innocent person. That's not to say it hasn't happened, it's just to show how unlikely it is to happen to someone. But let's say the guy is innocent, wasn't doing drugs. Why open fire? Because it was other criminals busting down his door with weapons? Interesting. Seems that firing upon them would likely get you killed. Doesn't seem like a reasonable person would start to open fire even in that situation. Now, we have to throw in the fact that this is not a common occurrence. Of course it happens, but its no where near as common as cops coming to your house and busting in your door with a warrant. So, its merely a very very slight possibility that you will be dealing with criminals. Either way, there is nothing reasonable about firing upon armed people who bust into your house wearing police uniforms.

I think you're wrong there - DEAD wrong - but it could be that I'm just not reasonable. If ANYONE kicks in my door, there's going to be lead flying, and damn the torpedos. They are NOT gaining entry unopposed. That's how trusting souls get raped and killed without ever even getting a chance to put up a fight.

I personally believe that "reasonable" involves a requirement to behave as if one lives in a civilized society, not like barbarians out in the jungle. Treat me in a civil manner, and it's all good, no one has to die. Handle it otherwise, and a bad day will be had by all, and I really don't care if I DO get killed. Some things are WORTH dying for, and defense of one's self, family, home, and rights are among those things.

I want nothing to do with a man who has not the cojones to defends his own. As I said before, a home invasion is a home invasion, badge or not. They're fast and violent, and I'm not stopping to check the playbook if one goes down here, nor am I just going to take a shouted word for it that it really IS cops when my own door is getting kicked in.

So, your idea of living in a civilized society involves committing crimes and firing upon people who you have no reason to believe are any OTHER than the police but the police are uncivilized when they don't knock and announce for their own safety and to prevent loss of evidence of said crimes, despite it not being a right guaranteed to you by the Fourth Amendment?

A home invasion is not a home invasion when there is a badge behind it and a properly executed search warrant. Because, at that point, the Court has given the police officers the right to enter and look through your effects, at least to the point of locating whatever evidence they are looking for. If you think its reasonable to fire upon police officers when you see them break down your door, then you have to understand that its reasonable for them to fire back at you and put you in a body bag. At that point, there should be no complaints by you that you had your rights deprived.

The Law in the US regarding warrants states that cops do NOT have to knock in announce in a few situations. Two of those situations are where the evidence is easily destructible and knocking and announcing would likely be a situation where the evidence could be destroyed are involved or where the officers are likely to encounter violence. The encountering violence exception applies to drug cases as well. The evidence destruction was created in response to drugs as well. So, to sum, when the officers are coming with a valid search warrant, they have an absolute right to bust in your door and just charge in to your house.

Nope.That's not a right, it's a law, and sometimes the twain just don't meet. I have a right to be secure in my self, my home, and my effects, period, and no law has ever been written which can trump a right

I think they ought to pass another law that this law be engraved prominently on the tombstone of everyone killed in the commission of such lunacy.

The funny part is you call on the Fourth Amendment here stating that the knock and announce rule is a right, because we are civilized. Yet you conveniently ignore the fact that there is NOTHING in the Fourth Amendment providing for knock and announce. So, there is nothing there that guarantees you that right. The only thing it says is that officers must have probable cause (which they did) and the warrant must be particularized in the place to be searched (it was) and the things to be seized (it was). In sum, his ENTIRE rights were met.

And just to be clear, you think you have a right to open fire upon police officers if they kick in your door? Because this is what you are arguing here.

I personally believe that this guy was likely guilty and knew that the cops were there to bust him. He probably did not want to spend the rest of his life in prison so he opened fire. Remember, the cops didn't just randomly think he dealt drugs, they had probable cause. The probable cause was determined to exist by a neutral judge. So, this is the most likely scenario. And even if he didn't do the crime, who the hell opens fire when it is just one guy with a gun versus a gaggle of officers with guns?

As to the first part, that's pure speculation, and I've been getting pretty worn out lately by the blind willingness of some to throw away the lives of OTHERS based upon sheer speculation.

"Probable cause" can be pretty damned thin and forced some times.

As to the last part, I will, and so will a lot of other folks who just haven't been dropped in that particular pot of grease as yet. Outnumbered or not, I'm not going quietly into that gentle night. You can take THAT to the bank, and have it engraved on my headstone as well, because it's the gospel truth.

edit on 2011/7/7 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)

I don't think you are being honest with yourself here, or throughout the entire post. I HIGHLY doubt that you would think it was a good idea to start firing a gun if you saw what appeared to be a whole bunch of police officers kick down your door. And if you would, I sincerely hope that you never have that happen to you.

As far as your probable cause statement, I am not sure what you are basing this off of. A judge is making the determination not the police. At the very least they had an informant who had established themselves in the past, by informing on other people, as a reliable and accurate informant. At the most, they had a whole plethora of evidence.

Again, I hope you actually pause, and detach yourself from the hatred you have for Cops, and sit here and honestly review this case and ask: what kind of person would open fire on people that were, for all he knew, police officers? You act as if the police started this incident, but you forget that the guy was the first one to start shooting.

And what would happen in 99% of the cases if the cops waited to knock and announce (and most likely this case too as it happened without knocking and announcing)? The drug dealers would arm themselves and start opening fire ANYWAY. Despite the "civility" of the officers, there would be FAR more deaths. You, and other people on this particular thread, are not being rational with your line of thinking here.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by dubiousone

 

Well there you are assuming a number of things, most importantly that they even contacted him before he went rambo. For all we know, the old guy saw police and simply opened fire irregardless.

Yeah. Sure. In your mind it's always the civilian dead guy's fault. By the way, it was the cops who went Rambo when they violently invaded the sanctity of his home. Are you a human being or a machine? Your posts on this topic seem programmed.

Originally posted by Ryanp5555

* * * *

I don't think you are being honest with yourself here, or throughout the entire post. I HIGHLY doubt that you would think it was a good idea to start firing a gun if you saw what appeared to be a whole bunch of police officers kick down your door. And if you would, I sincerely hope that you never have that happen to you.

As far as your probable cause statement, I am not sure what you are basing this off of. A judge is making the determination not the police. At the very least they had an informant who had established themselves in the past, by informing on other people, as a reliable and accurate informant. At the most, they had a whole plethora of evidence.

Again, I hope you actually pause, and detach yourself from the hatred you have for Cops, and sit here and honestly review this case and ask: what kind of person would open fire on people that were, for all he knew, police officers? You act as if the police started this incident, but you forget that the guy was the first one to start shooting.

And what would happen in 99% of the cases if the cops waited to knock and announce (and most likely this case too as it happened without knocking and announcing)? The drug dealers would arm themselves and start opening fire ANYWAY. Despite the "civility" of the officers, there would be FAR more deaths. You, and other people on this particular thread, are not being rational with your line of thinking here.

The problem stems from law enforcement's resort to violence in the first instance, as their initial approach to the perceived problem.

Why is that necessary? They aren't the military whose solution to everything is to administer lethal force.

If you have a house that is known without a doubt to be occupied by violent criminals who have committed and are in the process of committing felonies (i.e. possession of illegal drugs), why risk anyone's life. Lay siege to it. Cut off the water, electricity, and gas. Keep them contained for a week. They will either dehydrate, starve, or surrender. It isn't necessary to go Rambo as your first choice. That's just what the steroid, testosterone, and adrenaline pumped-up macho boys like to do while dressed up in their kevlar armor and stylish bullet proof helmets.

The case at issue on this thread did not call for a violent approach at all. Pull your head out from between your legs for once. Enjoy the sunshine. Breathe the fresh air. It's a much better place to be.

You can keep coming up with inapplicable weak inane excuses and examples to justify what the SWAT freaks did in this case. It doesn't work. They murdered a man in his own home without justification. That they had a warrant doesn't erase their accountability and culpability any more than the Nazis' excuse that they were just following orders worked for them.

This crap has to stop.

reply to post by dubiousone


I'm not a machine I can assure you.

The fact of the matter is this. We don't know. So I don't assume. We don't know if the cops blasted in there guns blazing, or if the old guy just started shooting at people the second the left the vehicle. We don't know if there was a hostage, if he had one earlier, if he was involved with someone.

Without knowledge, there can be no judgement. Assumption leads to failure, so I will not assume.

We know only from the words of the cops. And to be honest, I trust the word of the police involved over the word of witnesses from blocks away.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by dubiousone

 

I'm not a machine I can assure you.

The fact of the matter is this. We don't know. So I don't assume. We don't know if the cops blasted in there guns blazing, or if the old guy just started shooting at people the second the left the vehicle. We don't know if there was a hostage, if he had one earlier, if he was involved with someone.

Without knowledge, there can be no judgement. Assumption leads to failure, so I will not assume.

We know only from the words of the cops. And to be honest, I trust the word of the police involved over the word of witnesses from blocks away.

edit on 7-7-2011 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)

Actually, you do know what occurred if you read the articles.

Those cops killed a man in his own home. A man who was not doing anything that justified the invasion of his home. Do you think maybe they have a reason to lie about what occurred?

You have no reason to doubt the citizens who witnessed what happened and were not in any way involved in the incident. They have no motive to lie. The SWAT guys have every reason to come up with whatever justification they think will get them off the hook for that man's death and how they conducted that raid.

This is not an "Oh well, # happens, nothing to see, move on" situation. A man was pointlessly killed in his own home.

But I see that all this falls on your deaf ears since a cop's word is gospel and a citizen's word is bunk in your mind.