SWAT uses flashbang on sleeping 12-year-old girl

[ArmedProgrammer]

If they didn't, that's their collective a$$e$

Incorrect - it's OUR collective $$$....

Just sayin...


not an issue in this particular case since they appear to have a warrant, but when things go wrong and bad judgement is used, those $$ come from all of us.

 

[Hotdoger]

So a warrant is always expected to bear fruits?
At what percent should a warrant be successful? And if it's 100% why have a warrant at all?

All though going on one article is silly,

Seems 100 % percent wrong in this case.

I would like to see the steaming pile of crap the warrant was based on.

Are you telling me you have not seen warrants filed with totaly false info ?

 

[spearheadersarge]

The ponit everyone is missing is there is no accountability if the action is wrong. Sure the family gets to sue and will be compensated at tax-payer expense, but the people in charge will skate. Why is there no mechanism that hold the cops and judiciary accountable for the failure? If the judge knew his nuts were on the line for a bad warrant and the SWAT team and cops could face criminal proceedings for assault and or breaking and entering they might ensure their info was correct and possibly use no knock raids a little less!

 

[Sean]

The ponit everyone is missing is there is no accountability if the action is wrong. Sure the family gets to sue and will be compensated at tax-payer expense, but the people in charge will skate. Why is there no mechanism that hold the cops and judiciary accountable for the failure? If the judge knew his nuts were on the line for a bad warrant and the SWAT team and cops could face criminal proceedings for assault and or breaking and entering they might ensure their info was correct and possibly use no knock raids a little less!

You hit the nail on the head if a judge signs a B.S. warrant they should be removed from the bench but unfortunately that's not the case. Cops want to play soldiers and counter terror ops and no-knock warrants give them that opportunity, how many times have they had bad intel or even the wrong address but they still continue to use them. I would hate to see the outcome of them getting the wrong address of someone that fights back in the middle of the night thinking someone is breaking in.

 

[Kutnupe14]

The ponit everyone is missing is there is no accountability if the action is wrong. Sure the family gets to sue and will be compensated at tax-payer expense, but the people in charge will skate. Why is there no mechanism that hold the cops and judiciary accountable for the failure? If the judge knew his nuts were on the line for a bad warrant and the SWAT team and cops could face criminal proceedings for assault and or breaking and entering they might ensure their info was correct and possibly use no knock raids a little less!

"Who" do you hold accountable? The officers making entry, the officers gaining intel for the warrant, or the judge that signs it?

 

[Kutnupe14]

You hit the nail on the head if a judge signs a B.S. warrant they should be removed from the bench but unfortunately that's not the case. Cops want to play soldiers and counter terror ops and no-knock warrants give them that opportunity, how many times have they had bad intel or even the wrong address but they still continue to use them. I would hate to see the outcome of them getting the wrong address of someone that fights back in the middle of the night thinking someone is breaking in.

Actually, more soldiers want to play cop.

 

[Sean]

"Who" do you hold accountable? The officers making entry, the officers gaining intel for the warrant, or the judge that signs it?

We can start with judges when they sign affidavits that are obviously completely scripted without actually making the effort to be nothing more than a robo-signer. Moving on we can hold the intel team responsible for their lack of intel. When the entry team decides not to use any of their own judgement of the situation and continues to allow a bad situation to continue, or when they get the wrong house completely we should probably also hold them accountable.

 

[Sean]

Actually, more soldiers want to play cop.

I prefer soldiers wanting to play cops more so than cops wanting to play soldiers.

 

[Archaic_Entity]

We can start with judges when they sign affidavits that are obviously completely scripted without actually making the effort to be nothing more than a robo-signer. Moving on we can hold the intel team responsible for their lack of intel. When the entry team decides not to use any of their own judgement of the situation and continues to allow a bad situation to continue, or when they get the wrong house completely we should probably also hold them accountable.

Your request makes no feasible sense. This is the government we're talking about here. They're a lumbering machine with 1000 moving parts. Let's isolate this particular incident for an example, and bear in mind I'm no officer, so I may not even grasp at all the straws in play.

You have the officers that are building the case that this house is a meth lab. Their job is to figure out if they think it's incredibly likely this place is making a drug. They do their job. It's not just one man. It's a unit. They develop a case that seems solid enough to send to a judge for a warrant. You're telling me that this judge should do what? Hide out in a van for a few nights to confirm the suspicions? Or does it make more sense for him to sign the warrant based on his officers' evidence they provided?

The decision to use a SWAT team was based on a detailed checklist the department uses when serving warrants.

Investigators consider dozens of items such as residents' past criminal convictions, other criminal history, mental illness and previous interactions with law enforcement.

Each item is assigned a point value and if the total exceeds a certain threshold, SWAT is requested. Then a commander approves or rejects the request.

In Tuesday's raid, the points exceeded the threshold and investigators called in SWAT.

Clearly there are some indicators here that point to the possibility that these people are dangerous. I obviously don't know the checklist, but I'm sure it requires more than one checkmark. So it's decided to send a group of officers (SWAT) that likely have no prior connections to this case. One officer makes a mistake with his flash bang pole, and an unfortunate incident occurred. They raided the house and came back ... maybe negative?

No arrests were made during the raid and no charges have been filed, although a police spokesman said afterward that some evidence was recovered during the search. St. John declined to release specifics of the drug case, citing the active investigation, but did say that "activity was significant enough where our drug unit requested a search warrant."

So, probably not a meth lab there. But maybe enough materials to make a guess that they have a meth lab somewhere? Who knows?

Furthermore, like Kutnupe asked, "Who do you decide to sue?"

The guys who investigated the house. The judge that did his job, and relied on the intel of the guys who investigated the house. Or the officers who performed the raid, likely with briefing on the situation, and no prior experience with this particular case? With evidence recovered according to their spokesperson.

I have a tough time believing the huge town of Missoula, Montana is full of everyone from the top down being corrupt.

 

[level.eleven]

Why do these happen everyday?

Another Isolated Incident | The Agitator

Does anyone have any information on the amount of research that is done before these raids on citizen's homes?

 

[MagicKev]

"Who" do you hold accountable? The officers making entry, the officers gaining intel for the warrant, or the judge that signs it?

Yes.

 

[Archaic_Entity]

Yes.

Based on what logic?

 

[Bang-bang]

Better choice for swat team, surround house, then tell killers, drug loads , etc to come out, using loud speaker. No cost for tax payers flash bang, MUCH safer for LEO's (imo) .

 

[Bang-bang]

+100

The ponit everyone is missing is there is no accountability if the action is wrong. Sure the family gets to sue and will be compensated at tax-payer expense, but the people in charge will skate. Why is there no mechanism that hold the cops and judiciary accountable for the failure? If the judge knew his nuts were on the line for a bad warrant and the SWAT team and cops could face criminal proceedings for assault and or breaking and entering they might ensure their info was correct and possibly use no knock raids a little less!

 

[Sean]

Your request makes no feasible sense. This is the government we're talking about here. They're a lumbering machine with 1000 moving parts. Let's isolate this particular incident for an example, and bear in mind I'm no officer, so I may not even grasp at all the straws in play.

You have the officers that are building the case that this house is a meth lab. Their job is to figure out if they think it's incredibly likely this place is making a drug. They do their job. It's not just one man. It's a unit. They develop a case that seems solid enough to send to a judge for a warrant. You're telling me that this judge should do what? Hide out in a van for a few nights to confirm the suspicions? Or does it make more sense for him to sign the warrant based on his officers' evidence they provided?

1. Judges do sign off on warrants with no due diligence thats a problem
2. Their job isn't to find out if they're "likely" to be doing X inside, their job is to gather enough evidence to connivence a judge that probable cause exists for a search
3. Nope no need for the judge to go on a stake out but when they sign off on a warrant for an address that doesn't even match the physical description of the dwelling thats a problem. I guess it's asking a little much for a judge to verify a few basic facts, I mean it would take the judge an extra five minutes to bust out the GIS page for the address and see if the address and description even add up, if it doesn't we probably should trust the rest of the cops intel. That is just one example of common errors in warrants and how they can be avoided but there are many more that could be resolved with minimal time or effort by the judge or magistrate.

It does make sense for a judge to sign a warrant based on the information provided by the officers but due diligence should be exercised. If we should just take everything the officer states at face value why even have the judge involved in the process at all?

 

[Archaic_Entity]

1. Judges do sign off on warrants with no due diligence thats a problem
Never argued that. Why is there an assumption he did in this case? Did I miss some piece of evidence that says he did?
2. Their job isn't to find out if they're "likely" to be doing X inside, their job is to gather enough evidence to connivence a judge that probable cause exists for a search
Half a dozen in one hand. Probable cause existing for a meth lab is the same as saying, "They're likely doing..." so long as you produce evidence backing your claim.
3. Nope no need for the judge to go on a stake out but when they sign off on a warrant for an address that doesn't even match the physical description of the dwelling thats a problem. I guess it's asking a little much for a judge to verify a few basic facts, I mean it would take the judge an extra five minutes to bust out the GIS page for the address and see if the address and description even add up, if it doesn't we probably should trust the rest of the cops intel. That is just one example of common errors in warrants and how they can be avoided but there are many more that could be resolved with minimal time or effort by the judge or magistrate.
Again, am I missing something that says they signed the warrant for the wrong address in this case?

It does make sense for a judge to sign a warrant based on the information provided by the officers but due diligence should be exercised. If we should just take everything the officer states at face value why even have the judge involved in the process at all?

I agree that a judge should practice due diligence, and that includes weighing the evidence and determining whether or not what they present is sufficient for a warrant. And sure, double-checking is a good thing. But the reason for a judge is the checks and balances. Police are part of the executive branch of government, and have to present their evidence to the judiciary branch who utilize precedent and the current law or IC to determine whether or not everything meets on a lawful level. Their job isn't necessarily to proofread for typos in the brief.

 

[Hotdoger]

Based on what logic?

Accessory.

 

[Archaic_Entity]

Accessory.

Brilliant one word answer.

 

[MagicKev]

One word is all that was needed. And that was back when my one word answer stated everyone that should be held responsible.

You see in any place of employment, there are responsibilities and consequences. Well except when its the government/law enforcement or unions involved...which just so happens to be both in this scenario. If one were to screw up just this badly as even a fry cook at a fast food joint, they would be fired. I let a guy go from one of our shows for far less safety infractions that this.

Too many accept the power, but not the responsibility.

 

[phylodog]

Too many accept the power, but not the responsibility.

Too many expect perfection when they aren't capable of it themselves nor are they willing to pay for it.