TexasCHLforum.com

rbwhatever1 wrote:If the event was important enough to warrant breaching the structure by order of a judge, it should be understood by all to make sure one is at the right location and that the target is in fact at that same location before commencing the assault and putting LEO's and Citizens both in grave danger for nothing. These are very basic things. Breaching a structure occupied by armed and deadly combatants that may also contain innocent citizens is not a game to be taken lightly.

How? How within a reasonable rural police budget can you guarantee such a thing? Mind you that also ignores that they would be a search warrant for the structure as that was the location of the criminal act.

Having a warrant in hand should never imply that the operation should commence if unknown variables exist. If it takes extra manpower or extra time to ensure things are done right so be it. Judgment is paramount and its apparent this particular raid was doomed from the start.

Every operation has unknown variables. Your statement implies resources are unlimited and they just are not. You can't let perfection be the enemy of the good.

The focus was entirely on the entry and not on the target, since that target wasn't even there. Innocent people injured for nothing is a failure by everyone involved from the Judge down.

Let's see drug arrests, multiple people, previous arrests, propensity to violence, known to possess illegal weapons, You might not like no knocks but they are the law there and seemingly this would more than qualify so how this was a failure on the judges part seems to be unsupported. That the "target", though the location was also the target not just the BG, was missing does not mean that the focus was not on getting him. That is a logical fallacy that just doesn't support your statement.

thenick_ttu wrote: I can't believe you are trying to defend this situation by saying the police are trying to save time and money. It doesn't matter how many man-hours it takes, the police should know for a fact that the suspect is in the house before they perform a no-knock entry. Supposedly, the whole point of the raid is to arrest the suspect, so why wouldn't they make sure he is there? The answer to your question of "who was supposed to be watching" is someone. Somebody should have been watching and they should have been certain that the suspect was inside.

I didn't. I am saying that some of the comments are off point, wrong, or just one dimensional and lack context and real world understanding. Also you haven't really answered my "questions" have you. "It doesn't matter how many man hours" is a fallacy, absurd on it's face. Of course it does. It's a rural dept with limited funds and every dollar spent one place means taking it away from something else. I'm not arguing with Charles because he is just saying he doesn't like them (no knocks) and doesn't want them to be legal. I may not agree but there isn't anything to argue, that is how he feels. Others are trying to pick apart individual aspects and say "this part is wrong", blame the cops, and then condemn me for disagreeing with what is obviously a subjective statement. In the situation I posited I don't think it should be "required" that someone watch the location until a warrant was obtained. For instance I doubt they could of guarantied the warrant would of even been issued that night. They then would of probably waited a few days and served the warrant then. I don't believe they had 20 officer sitting a donut shop waiting for this warrant. They got a warrant, went to the location where the guy is normally at. Served the warrant. Sure he was gone but they must of also had a search warrant which was served at the same time. If it was because it was a no knock, which we haven't had confirmation that it was a true no knock yet, then say "XXX is what I would like to see happen when police serve a no knock warrant". That the internet experts think that sitting at home with no knowledge of the area, dept, location, or really just about any of the factors involved, think they definitely know better than people there boggle my mind.

rbwhatever1 wrote:Trying to justify the urgency and merit of a "no knock home invasion" to catch a bad guy that wasnt even home during the calamity is preposterous.

This entire operation was destined to fail from the moment the Judge signed the warrant because the "bad guy" was no longer the issue once the warrant was in hand. The issue at hand was executing the dramatic entry with all the cool toys and the main "purpose" of the warrant itself no longer existed.

Urgency is not a factor for a no knock warrant. I haven't really even heard if this was a true no knock or not. Let's break it down. They have a warrant for a BG and they know his most likely location, a house that he sells drugs out of and they also have a search warrant for that location. There are multiple people at that location involved in trafficking and it appears to be something that some other family members are involved in. So how long do they sit and wait with their only SRT team before they serve the warrant? How much of the resources get put on hold while they confirm he is where they think he is? And knowing all we do how can there be no purpose to serving a warrant on a known drug location? I get that people have different opinions on no knocks and forced entry warrants but you don't help yourselves when the rhetoric is inaccurate.

SewTexas wrote:he could have been guilty of mass murder, that doesn't justify the fact that they took all eyes off the house long enough for him to leave, and for EVERYONE in the house to go to sleep. if you read it, it sounds like it was hours later, like many hours, because no judge is going to want to sign a warrant at 3 AM! so let's say the drug buy went down at 3 PM and the warrant was signed by 5, because they are just speedy that way, that gave them 10 hours!!! You're trying to make it sound like it all happened in 15 minutes, but I'm just not buying it. They still didn't take a look at the cars in front of the house to see who was there? yeh, I"m feeling better everyday about my best friend living in that area.

I'm not "trying" to make it sound like anything. I am just repeating what I heard. No one who knows anything about getting a warrant thinks it takes 15 min to get one. This probably happened around 2 ish so it would of likely been sometime in the late afternoon/evening that the deal went down. As to they should of left someone there to watch. Who? Do you know who was available? I assume that since it was a CI buy they didn't have a full team just sitting there and most likely was just 2 narc officers. Let's say they went to go do the paperwork, get a warrant, and get together an entry team, because that certainly could be the case, who was supposed to be watching? What should they of assumed about the cars on the street? Do they run every car and if they can't figure out where one belongs call off the warrant? How much time is to be spent on each warrant. How many man hours because some of these possibilities sure seem like it would end up costing more which means less time and money to be used elsewhere.

tomneal wrote:

Javier730 wrote:
No knock warrants should only be used when police know for sure there is a fugitive in the home they are going in, in my opinion.

Tom's Good Reasons for No Knock Warrants
- Active Kidnapping (Real Kidnappings, not custody disputes between parents.)
- Weapons of Mass Destruction

I'd like to see State and Federal legislatures change laws to limit No Knock Warrants.
Apparently the courts are ok issuing no knock swat warrants for trivial crimes.

Honestly if you will check the criteria for such warrants very greatly from state to state and some jurisdictions prohibit no knock warrants all together. In Georgia the police are required to have Probable Cause, a higher standard than required for a normal search warrant, of a suspects threat to public safety to get a no knock warrant issued. I do think there is also some drug exemption there also. This was an active drug sale location with a suspect that had a history of violence and previous weapons charges and worked in conjunction with several other people to supply drugs. So this does not automatically make what happened here ok but lets also not trivialize the crimes and situation to make a point.

Jim Beaux wrote: No ifs, ands, or buts about it - All the rhetoric in the world cannot mitigate the fact that a baby was roasted in the quest of some who wanted to play cowboy.

I addressed specific points others raised about the mother and their situation. I don't think the mothers decision making has any effect on the liability or responsibility of the police and the SRT team that served the warrant where the child was injured. I also don't think using inflammatory terms to describe the babies injuries or impugning the motives of specific officers, without having the slightest bit of knowledge of them aside from their being involved in this incident, is warranted.

SewTexas wrote: I've read maybe 3 pretty long articles about this case, they seem pretty thorough. If you read through them you get a few things out of them.

1. a couple of people have "blamed" the parents...."why did they have the kids there in the first place" well, let's see, their house had burned down, they had 4 kids, and starting over is expensive. You go to what family you have, seek comfort and try again.
2. They had JUST gotten there that day from the readings, maybe the day before, even if the parents were "aware of the goings on" where were they to go?
3. I'm wondering if the BG had maybe moved his operations? yes, there were apparently sales that happened and were witnessed, but then he was gone, at a 'partners' house. did he try to move the biz while the family was at his house? I would if I were him, kids can't keep quiet.

1 I spoke to that " I won't come down on the woman to hard because when the choice is homelessness or staying with a shady relative......." and understand it may be a difficult choice but she made it and it is what it is. You roll the dice and you sometimes lose. She was definitely gambling.
2 Anywhere else. Now this is hearsay from the reports but she told the cops that she locked herself and the kids up while they were dealing so she knew. It seems it was a "Family" business. I can't know what her options were but there must be more than staying at a drug house. Shelters, churches, heck even the cops will help if you ask. They might not be good options but lets not pretend she had to be there.
3 Cops said that they made a buy thru a CI at that same door they entered the home. Then went right to get a warrant and served it as soon as it was signed. The dealer was offsite yes, but it was only to make a deliveries. He wasn't "moving" anything. Hours before he had dealt Meth feet from where the baby was injured.

A-R wrote:

EEllis wrote:Turns out that the guy they were looking for wasn't there during the raid. The guy had sold meth to a CI and the cops went to get a warrant and came back to serve the warrant and the guy left to make deliveries. The guy had been arrested for drugs and weapons charges before at that location. This seems to be an almost gang sale situation with "guards" often being at the location. The woman knew they sold drugs at that location and reportedly, by her statements to the police, would take the kids in the back room and lock the door while business was occurring.

I have NO interest in defending throwing a flashbang near a child. And what I'm about to write is in no way a defense nor excuse to that action. But I think a point made above has been missed in the bloodlust to again indict police for using " no-knock" tactics.

How much blame for this is placed on the child's parents for allowing the child to sleep in a known drug house and/or for the drug users / dealers for using/dealing with children around?

Again, this is not an excuse/defense for the police action. Just a desire to see requisite blame/responsibility on the people who put children into a dangerous environment.

Would the reaction be any different if the child was injured in inter-gang gun crossfire? Or is this lamentable only because some of the blame can be pointed at the police?

My comments usually are just written of because of being a police "apologist" but for the most part it seems people just use the child's injury to justify what they previously believed. The woman reportedly said that she locked her kids and herself in another room when they were dealing so she was concerned about safety and the situation. Drug houses have some closing time? After what time is it that you can be sure no one would try and jack your money or drugs? Is putting your kids playpen so close to the same door that they are selling drugs out of really that good of an idea at any hour. I won't come down on the woman to hard because when the choice is homelessness or staying with a shady relative........ but how much should you blame the cops? I also haven't seen any real conversations on strategy and tactics here. Strategy because it isn't just about the one raid. Following people until you can arrest them is great, setting up stings is awesome, but how does that effect the numbers of arrests they can make? The time they have available? The cost of operations? It can't be just about what is the best way to do one arrest. It has to be the best way to perform all the tasks required.

SewTexas wrote:
there should be recon anytime eyes have been taken off of a sight for more than 30 seconds. And there was a mini-van with baby seats, toys and stickers parked right in front of the house, how much bigger of a sign did they need?

Not to beat this into the ground but I disagree. I haven't see a pic but I don't think a minivan nearby screams "There are kids in the drug house". I also think that your 30 sec standard would mean the end to any practical warrant service. While that may be your goal the result will not be acceptable to the public at large.

Turns out that the guy they were looking for wasn't there during the raid. The guy had sold meth to a CI and the cops went to get a warrant and came back to serve the warrant and the guy left to make deliveries. The guy had been arrested for drugs and weapons charges before at that location. This seems to be an almost gang sale situation with "guards" often being at the location. The woman knew they sold drugs at that location and reportedly, by her statements to the police, would take the kids in the back room and lock the door while business was occurring.

SewTexas wrote:http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local/to ... aid/nf9SJ/
with an update.
there were 4 kids inside the home! and the cops recon was simply incompetent, no signs of the kids? but there was a mini van with car seats and stickers everywhere.
BG wasn't even in the home at the time and it's probably a good thing. this could have gone so far south so quickly and I think the sheriff realizes it. I think he also realizes he may not have a job come next election.

In their defence the kids didn't live there, they were visiting. They say crib like it's a babies bed that is up high and you could see but it was a portable playpen that is low to the ground and was in the living room near the entrance. Now none of this make what happened OK but it does frame the situation a bit different.

mamabearCali wrote:
A little watchfulness a little creative thought on the part of law enforcement and many of these horrific situations can be easily avoided. Take him down as he walks from his house to the car. Take him down as he is driving on the highway and you can see he is alone. Do as was suggested and arrange a meeting at a place you can control the environment. Raids in the middle of the night where there are known innocents just because that is the listed address of the person are lazy and poor police work much of the time.

That is not wishful thinking that is using ones head to make a safer arrest that won't put innocents in harms way.

Don't take this the wrong way because I'm not an expert on this but what would make you think you are either? If there is an issue, your theory just seems like the flipside of it, not making real change. By that I mean the concern that I have is that the people in LE make decisions based on what they "Think" is the best way to go without really looking and availing themselves of the science and research that we could have on the subjects. There are issues with both your scenarios that would allow bad things to happen. Just they are different bad things than what happened here. What we need is better research and evaluation of the possibilities rather than having people who have never done it mandating how it occurs.

mamabearCali wrote:What I don't get is why, in the name of all that is holy, if firearms and drugs are known to be present and are such a threat to officers lives that they have to engage in combat tactics with potential children in the home, don't they wait for the guy to be leaving 7-11 and take him there then get a warrant for the house and show up and get the evidence no drama needed.


If I can think of that, why can't they?

Like I have said before we all think we are so sofistcated in our police and criminal justice system, but in much more brutal times those who enforced the law were severely punished if they burned innocents along with the guilty.

Because there are never any kids at 7-11? You might be right that it is a better choice to try and apprehend someone outside a home but you have more variables that could occur outside than in a home. Assuming that it would provide better results without having access to more data is wishful thinking. What is really needed is real research into the issue and fact based decision making.