Great Post. You could be 100% correct in your assessment of this officer, maybe of the entire unit or police department. It sounds to me like you know him, know of him or have some other information that we don't know about. Maybe later you will fill us in on this guy's past.

I will agree with you that there are plenty of cops out there that probably have no business in law enforcement. However, usually guys that have made it through the winnowing process to be selected for tactical units are pretty qualified/proficient. To be on an entry team as opposed to a perimeter team even more so. To be the point man, even more so. But who knows....

But I'll ask that you concede that the Officers whom entered the house had absolutely nothing to do with the decision to hit that particular house. And agree with me that the decision to hit that house was made at the command level, not at the unit level.

I know a lot of cops and almost all of them are pretty decent guys who would prefer to never draw their weapon, tase someone or even go hands on. The "cowboys" seem to get weeded out. The guys I know on SWAT are the best of the best, intelligent and thoughtful.

Where did you get this info?

Post #10. I think....

Golf club dude didn't have that option, now did he?

None of the above.

How about some special forces fantasy harboring coward who is all giddy at the thought of an opportunity to "get some" in an almost no-risk raid? How about a guy who is part of a team that won't call it off, even knowing their suspect has moved out? How about a guy who lied to a judge (or is associated with someone who did), grossly miss-representing their case to a judge, so they could get their no-knock "A" ticket?

Here is a good article

Police video shows how drug raid turned deadly | The Salt Lake Tribune

The shooting was deemed legally justified.

That's what blows my mind.

I just reviewed the article. I am going to assume that the article is accurate because of the amount of time that has passed between the incident and the publish date.

Good shooting. If the closing distance was only 8 feet, as the article stated, then I would say Very Good Shooting.

The article establishes the following;
-house is a dope house. vehicle and ped traffic all hours of the night. (meth and heroin, both felony drugs in any usable amount)
-Dead Suspect meth user with long history of drug use, per his family.
-Dead Suspect likely small time meth dealer.
-Dead Suspect authorized his house to be used as flop house by dealers.
-Dead Suspect's girlfriend has lived at the house.
-Dead Suspect's girlfriend "moved out???" and back in. and back out. and back in. and back out... (you have to be familiar with the lifestyle that these people live to understand this)
-Dead Suspect advanced on Officer, while holding a deadly weapon in a striking position.
-Dead Suspect is now dead.

The point man was a Sgt. This tells us two things. 1. He was the most experienced, most highly skilled operator in the unit. 2. There was someone of higher rank running the operation.

Also interesting to note that the Sgt had one officer involved shooting in his history and that that shooting was also a good shooting. How do I assume that the prior shooting was clean? Because if it wasn't, you can bet your bottom dollar that The Salt Lake Tribune would be running that history in the second or third paragraph of this story, not on the third page.

And one more thing about my prior rant about "The War on Drugs." The only reason that I think that its stupid is because I live in a 5000 sq foot house on a street with 3 MD's, a fed ex pilot, a retired military officer, a Banker, an architect, a Charter Cable exec, a clothing line owner and a General Contractor. That's it, 12 houses. (the 12th is vacant and for sale).

If I lived in a neighborhood like the one where this shooting occurred, then I probably wouldn't think that "The War on Drugs" is so stupid.

And one other thing.

Once the point man entered the room, he had to own it. A quote in the article referred to the Sgt as stating that he was trying to "dig the corner." What that means is that when entering the room, his primary responsibility was to own either the left or right side of the room, all the way into the corner. And even though his primary responsibility changed the split second that Golf Club Boy showed up, even with all of the training in the world, he is still going to be thinking about digging "his" corner. In a perfect entry, the team would flow into the room and the 3rd man would pick up the corner that the point man was originally tasked with. If there is an armed suspect in that corner who had decided to shoot it out, then you will have to take those rounds and attempt to overcome that threat with superior firepower.

And he had to do it immediately because the guys following him in all have their responsibilities also. Usually the 3rd guy would be responsible for going long where Golf Club Boy presented himself. But the Point had to assess and confront because Golf Club Boy presented himself.

Also keep in mind that you are trying to get 5 to 7 guys through one, small residential entry doorway in a matter of seconds. If the first or second guy gets shot and goes down, then you will have a traffic jamb at the door and everybody else will also get shot.

Pretty simple stuff really. or is it? :rolleyes:

Hell, that close, I could have shot him.

So this is a death sentence? Was this guy such a threat as to necessitate such an operation? No.

Suspect didn't advance on schidt. There was 5 seconds between the door being broken in and getting shot.

No. It could also mean he was the most politically-savvy or well-connected.

Irrelevant

There's no video of that shooting - it's the cops' word against the dead guy; if there hadn't been video of this one, we'd be reading a story of a meth-crazed lunatic with an exotic weapon trying to kill some heroic cops. There's lots of cases where the story doesn't match the video, particularly when the cops aren't aware of the video. It's really hard to concoct a good story with video evidence to the contrary, which is why there's such a huge crackdown on citizens recording cops.

This "dead person" (or however you want to label him as the raid wasn't a trial...)... He should have woken up from his (possibly druggy) sleep and within moments be fully alert and coherent, allowing himself to recognise that his residence was being raided by a legitimate police team with a misplaced warrant?

Back "in the day" when I was house sharing as a student in a reasonably sensible neighbourbood, our house was broken into and vandalised while I was out. Furniture was broken, kitchenware shattered, etc... Enough noise to wake the dead. But funnily enough they did not wake up my sober, law-abiding house-mate, who slept through the whole commotion and was lucky not have been attacked. He was a very heavy sleeper... Though if he had woken he probably would have stepped out of his room half awake and in fear, holding a golf club too.

I am not surprised that a resident in a house (known for drugs) when startled in the middle of the night may have said "what the Fuch" and took some time in comprehending his environment, especially if under the influence. I would expect the team performing the raid to know this would be a likely scenario to encounter, and be appropriately prepared / equipped to handle it correctly. The intention of the raid was an arrest, not a killing, correct?

Can such raids not be handled differently? Example - Surround the property appropriately, then gas the occupants unconscious before entering, allowing evidence to remain intact and disabling anyone inside at the same time? Or are bullets, dead bodies of possibly innocent people, and press conferences on raids-gone-wrong a more acceptable solution?

Hell, that close, I could have shot him.

In Law Enforcement "jargon", "good shooting" means clean, or justified shooting. It has nothing to do with accuracy.

In this incident, Golf Club Guy's decision to "come out swinging" came with a cost.

So this is a death sentence? Was this guy such a threat as to necessitate such an operation? No.

Yes, it turned into a death sentence.

That night you were not the one with the "juice" to make that call.

Suspect didn't advance on schidt. There was 5 seconds between the door being broken in and getting shot.

I must not have watched the same video that you watched. I saw Golf Club Boy come into the room holding a long metal object in his hands in such a manner as is commonly used by subjects whom are prepared to use the long metal object as a weapon with which to strike someone/something.

5 seconds. So Golf Club Boy used 4 seconds to flush the rest of the dope down the toilet and the remaining second to attack the police. Stupid Cops shouldn't have wasted so much time making entry. Better luck next time. Maybe they'll turn off the water at the street and hope that there isn't enough water in the toilet to complete the flush.

No. It could also mean he was the most politically-savvy or well-connected.

You mean like if your the "mayor's nephew" you are picked to be the point man, first through the door???? I'm obviously to stupid to understand your point. Sorry about that.


Irrelevant

Very relevant. Some idiots posting on this board think that the guys making the decisions where and when to serve High Risk Night Time Warrants are the same guys who actually enter the structures and carry out the service. And I thought that I was the one who is stupid. :rolleyes:

There's no video of that shooting - it's the cops' word against the dead guy; if there hadn't been video of this one, we'd be reading a story of a meth-crazed lunatic with an exotic weapon trying to kill some heroic cops. There's lots of cases where the story doesn't match the video, particularly when the cops aren't aware of the video. It's really hard to concoct a good story with video evidence to the contrary, which is why there's such a huge crackdown on citizens recording cops.

The push to video LE events/incidents is coming from inside LE, not outside of LE. Citizen complaints of misconduct against the police are easier to refute if there is audio/video evidence of the event.

Further, city attorneys and county attorneys are pushing for more and more technology. Believe it or not, the more audio/video that exists documenting critical (and even not so critical) incidents, the easier and CHEAPER it is to defend the city against lawsuits like the one that Golf Club Boy's family will file against the county who employed these officers.

Do you think that cities and counties would pay for this stuff (technology) if they didn't think that in the long run, it was more cost effective?

For years and years, smart cops would record contacts with citizens with cheap little recorders and then save the tapes. When somebody WITH A JOB made a misconduct complaint against them, they would produce the tape during the internal affairs interview, indisputably invalidate the complaint ( "and then the cop called me a N, blah blah blah"). The cop would get a copy of the complaint which was signed by the citizen and march over to the court house and file a small claims suit against the citizen. ALOT of guys won a few thousand dollars on these small claims cases. The best one that I remember at Long Beach PD was a registered nurse who was arrested for drunk driving and accused the officer of raping her on the way to jail. :)

Unfortunately, the 9th circuit court of appeals eventually put an end to it, because they reasoned that the threat of being sued by the police might cause a person with a LEGITIMATE complaint to remain silent.

If the issue is ever re-opened and is heard by the Supreme Court of the United States, I hope that they overturn the 9th Circuits decision and we can again "Get Paid!" when citizens file false complaints against us.

I personally have two racial profiling complaints (both from my black brothers) that were completely invalidated by patrol car audio/video. One of them is from a television evangelist. :D The other is from a black cop who was fired for misconduct. :rolleyes:

Golf Club Boy was not sleeping. These people seldom sleep. And NEVER at night. methAMPHETAMINE.

No. US Supreme Courts have "allowed" no-knock warrants so that evidence does not get destroyed. Pretty hard to "justify" any search warrant if 100% of the time you never find what the warrant specified that you were justified in searching for.

And houses catch on fire and burn down when you shoot chemicals inside.

Perhaps, I did not see the part of him not sleeping and thinking of cleaning out the basement to create a new dope lab whilst on his high in that video.

It was a single example asked as a question, with the point being that surely if we can put man on the moon decades ago (or hoax it if you so wish to believe) then we can perform raids on houses in a safer manner for both the person being raided but more importantly the officers performing the raid and any innocent bystander that may be affected. Not needing to shoot anyone dead I would think is much easier to explain - whether a raid goes right or wrong.

Take out the neighbourhood, the dead golf club boy, etc... From this equation. This could happen to anyone. Another possibility is the officer being shot dead in the process of raiding the wrong house by a law abiding pelicanite defending his home in a good neighbourhood. "Bad people" and drugs aren't exclusive to certain neighbourhoods. Are raid procedures?

Once again, what I was trying to discuss: Is there a safer way to perform such raids, or is it not going to happen due to red tape, cost, winning elections?

Police work is dangerous, period. So is being a criminal. Both have their inherent risks. Cops try to minimize the dangers, but sometimes it is unavoidable. I personaly am leery about "no-knock" warrants because they present a high-risk to both sides. In some instances, they offset the danger in favor of the cops, and that is their intent when dealing with dangerous suspects. The element of surprise is the intent.

Having been the "point" on many entries, you have a fraction of a second to make the ultimate decision, which will then be reviewed for countless hours by many who have never made those type of decisions. This in not a bad thing because there has to be a checks and balance in our great society.

This is a difficult incident to evaluate without the entire package, which is most likely more than a 1,000 page volume.

The standard for evaluating a use of force is "objectively reasonable." That is, at the time of the incident and from the officer's point of view at that particular split second, was the use of force, deadly in this incident, "objectively reasonable?"

In any city, particularly the inner city, 98% of the community are good, hard-working people. I know first hand, having spent the majority of my 22+ year career there. They deserve to be protected from the predatory 2% criminal element.

To call this tragic shooting an "execution by cop" is foolish and naive. I usually stay out of these discussions because of the strong "net bangers," but what the hell........ David

2 LEO's got killed just asking to speak to a suspect..

Rika

Absolutely 100% correct...

The officers actions once the door was breached are understandable. The breaching of the door with a "no knock' missing warrant was where the mistake was made. The proper execution of a poor plan still means a fubar with one dead. This is not acceptable.

All police-involved shootings should be reviewed by the citizenry, not fellow cops. In all shootings they circle the wagons. I believe even the San Bernardino Sheriff's murder of a marine who was in detained and compliant (circa 2009) was ruled as a "good shoot". Where's the oversight for mistakes? Let alone, mistakes that were willingly made.

= civilians running a war from their couch..
and a force that would hesitate when perhaps they should not..
I don't have the answer..

Rika

Civilian review board? Only if the civilians completed the academy and had a minimum of 200 hours of ride-along time and were put in numerous situations where their life was in imminent danger.

On several occassions, my Department conducted "simunition" training with community activists and media representatives. The participants were in the role of the officer and were placed in realistic scenarios. The scenarios were designed to be split-second, shoot-no shoot incidents. In every case, the non-LE participant shot more than 50% more frequently than the cops. It was an eye-opener for them and served as an excellent forum for discussion.

I know it is not relevant to this particular incident, just food for thought.

Karma
 

Eventually your crooked past will always catch up with you. In Chicago today ex-cop Jon Burge got 4 1/2 yrs for perjury and obstruction of justice. He got away with the torture and other evil deeds because the statute of limitations ran out. For some victims almost 30 yrs is a long time to wait for justice but I think 4 1/2 yrs in prison for an ex-cop will not be easy...atonement will take place ...eventually. The importance of this story is reflected in the fact that many of the same FOP that wanted to pay for this losers legal defense fund are sill around. Thats the bad news, the good news is, it wont be too long before they all retire.

Well said....but are you willing to give an opinion on the issuance of a "no knock warrant" based on what type of search and the description of the suspect?

In the relationship between law enforcement and the citizenry, societies have always struggled with a balance between the rights of its people and the authority of its law enforcement officers. The United States is supposed to be a country wherein we err on the side of citizens' rights, while doing our best to at least ensure officer safety in the daily performance of their duties. We have historically granted officers the benefit of the doubt in all cases where force is used, even deadly force. I believe that is how it should be, how it must be.

However, I think the recent proliferation of military-like SWAT teams has pushed that understanding between the citizenry and its police past the breaking point, past the boundaries of reason. SWAT teams were (in their early inception), undeniably needed in the areas and situations in which they were deployed. They saved officers' lives, they apprehended or eliminated some very unsavory characters, and they continue to do so today. My hat is off to them, and I sincerely thank them for the dangerous work they do. I do believe, however, that it is all starting to go wrong, and has been for some time.

The problems really only started with their proliferation into areas in which they are not needed, and when they started being deployed for all the wrong wrong reasons. It seems every little podunk police force thinks they need one. They are encouraged to think they need one by all manner of special funding, matching funding, and whatnot that sends money their way. The money is most often justified as being used to fight the "war on (some) drugs" (TM) or the equally dubious "war on terror". Either way, that doesn't really matter - what the departments, the mayors, the councilmen see is an influx of money to shore up what are typically underfunded police forces. Even the big cities, who legitimately need these teams, have fallen for the allure of such "easy money". Their hearts are in the right place, funding their police, but...

The problem with this money is that is does come with some strings - departments must demonstrate some "need" for these units and their fancy, expensive equipment. Since the vast majority of departments have no more need for a SWAT team than a rooster has for a bicycle, they find themselves in somewhat of a pickle. They resort to deploying these units under circumstances that no one would have ever considered in the past, prior to all the "free money" that comes with having one. They resort to using them for such mundane tasks as serving warrants to petty criminals for non-violent offenses. There is a very real "use 'em or lose 'em" situation these departments have fallen into, so with little other choice (in their minds), they find ways to use them. By way of justification, police trump up and exaggerate the dangers involved in what their forebears took on as routine police work. That was clearly the case in the specific situation discussed in this thread.

Add to that unsavory situation the fact that within these departments, there are no shortage of volunteers chomping at the bit to get into these units. There is a lot of status associated with being on a SWAT team, a lot of swagger potential the guys writing speeding tickets just don't get. There is the potential for some real excitement, some real "kick ass and take names" excitement. The "reluctant hero" picture our resident officer would like to paint may be true for some, but an equal number are impatiently waiting for their chance to "get some". Great attitude in battle, or even when raiding a violent felon's lair, but no so great when serving warrants to petty offenders with no violent history.

The inevitable result of these factors converging is the proverbial "perfect storm". Take a department that is in a continual "use them or lose them" budget battle, toss in some bored, over-eager team members just itching for some action, spice it up with judges all too quick to sign off on no-knock warrants (influenced by these departments, mayors, and a desire to appear "tough on crime"), and inevitably we find the dead body of an innocent citizen on the floor every once in awhile. And, somehow, incredibly, that is o.k. with these people. No one's fault, just the cost of doing business.

In every single instance of this to date, it seems they find ways to blame the dead guy - we have seen more than ample evidence of that right here in this thread. In their eyes, no one on their side is to blame - they all followed procedure - it's the dead guy that didn't, so it must be his fault. In this case in particular (and other similar cases) he should have known better, should have known their procedures, should have been able to process the overwhelming sensual overload of a full-on military invasion into his home (in mere seconds), and understand exactly what was happening before he even saw around the corner. The penalty for being bewildered for a few seconds, for being unable to pull off this super human feat? His life.

And, incidentally, we, the citizenry, are perceived as "stupid" by these very folks because we do not understand their procedures, tactics, command structure, and all of that. If we are unlucky enough to get in the way, why, that's our own damn fault, and the post-action debrief will spare no effort to demonstrate that while we were not the intended target, it's just as well - we deserved it anyway, for whatever other bad habits we may have had. Or, if for no other reason, we were simply too "stupid" to pick up on their game quickly enough. Life's tough, tougher if you're stupid - get over it.

Well, we should not have to understand any of their tactics, policies, rules, command structure, or any of that. All we have to understand is how we, as the ultimate authority in this land, would like to be policed. We see the dead body of an innocent man on the floor and understand quite clearly that something went gravely wrong. We understand that that is not acceptable under any circumstances, that there are no excuses for this outside of a battle field. In sharp contrast, we hear from the other side of the "thin blue line" that this sort of "collateral damage" is perfectly acceptable and, moreover, because we have not walked that mile in their shoes, we are not even qualified to render an opinion on this. We simply need to trust them, and not worry our pretty little heads. They have it handled. We are too stupid to understand.

Sorry, but that is not how it is supposed to work in this country. It's long past time to introduce some "adult supervision" into this situation. The police have demonstrated time and time again that they do not have the maturity, judgement, and perhaps most importantly of all, the compassion and empathy to be trusted with their deadly new toy known as the "SWAT" team. Again, I agree there will always be a time and place for such teams - I'm simply saying the police are not the ones to decide when and where that time and place is. We have trusted their judgement on this, and the innocent bodies are mounting too quickly. Our mistake. They have proven incapable of showing enough restraint, of being able to discern the difference between policing a civilian population and engaging an enemy on the battlefield.

So, yes, citizens' review boards would be a viable tool to use in an effort to start reigning these folks back in. Not just post-action, but as a continuing presence reviewing not only SWAT activity, but any and all citizens' complaints and concerns. And no, no one has to go through their academy to be qualified to determine how we would like to be policed. Upstanding, reputable members of the community are eminently qualified to "police the police".

As an aside, we actually had such a review board right here in Seattle up until a few short years ago. It was Mayor Nickels's response to growing citizen concerns over Seattle police behavior. Men and women on this review board were former Senators, Representatives, Mayors, and other such "pillars of the community" (yeah, I know - they were politicians, but let's leave wisecracks about that aside for now). This review board only lasted a few years before they quit en masse, in disgust over the stonewalling, lies, obfuscation, and abject lack of cooperation from the Seattle Police Department and its chief. They held a news conference where they read an open letter to the mayor, the chief of police, the police, and the citizens of Seattle. It wasn't pretty; they did not mince words.

Anyway, to go full circle, we see the dead body of an innocent man laying on the floor and reach the quite logical conclusion that something went horribly wrong, that someone made a horrible mistake, or a number of someones made a series of horrible mistakes. In sharp contrast, the police, the D.A., and others in authority simply shrug their shoulders and say "meh, it happens...". They don't care. They don't have to in today's environment, and they won't care until we give them a reason to, until we make it a practice to hold each and every one of them involved responsible for the death of that innocent man. So, with no real consequences for their "mistakes", real financial incentives tied to their use, and overzealous Rambos looking to "get some" staffing them, it's no wonder these SWAT teams kill innocents. It's time we put an end to it.

On a related note, this is the neighbor of mine who was shot by the ninjas as they went to arrest him, unarmed with no history of violence. I saw part of this and heard the shot. IAD interviewed me for it the next day.

Fairfax finalizes deal with Culosi family

By Tom Jackman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, January 19, 2011; B05

Every Tuesday, every Sunday, every birthday, every holiday, Anita Culosi visits her son's grave. In addition, she writes heartfelt notes to him on a blog, updating him on the family's progress without him.

Her son, Salvatore J. Culosi, was a 37-year-old optometrist who was shot to death by a Fairfax County police officer in January 2006. On Tuesday, just days short of the fifth anniversary of the shooting, the county formally agreed in U.S. District Court in Alexandria to pay his family $2 million to settle their lawsuit against the officer.

Culosi's parents, his two sisters and brother were present, along with the lawyers, in the otherwise empty courtroom of U.S. District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema for a brief hearing that ended a case that was set for trial Tuesday. Outside the courtroom, their pain seemed as fresh as the day they learned of Culosi's death.

Tears flowed, again. Culosi's mother wore black, again.

"My son's life was stolen from him for no good reason," Anita Culosi said. "There is nothing that will ever justify what they caused my family to know, the suffering, the pain and the loss of Sal's life, which we will live with until we are with him again."

Culosi was shot by SWAT Officer Deval V. Bullock, 45, on the night of Jan. 24, 2006. Police had been investigating Culosi as a suspected sports bookmaker because he had been betting on football games with an undercover detective.

When the time came to arrest Culosi, the detective requested a team of SWAT officers to apprehend Culosi. Although Culosi had no weapons or history of violence, police were concerned by the guns and security measures they'd seen when taking down private poker games.

Bullock was a 17-year veteran with several years of experience as a tactical officer. As Culosi stood, unarmed, in the doorway of the undercover detective's vehicle, handing over a $1,500 payout, Bullock's sport-utility vehicle pulled in behind them. Bullock leaped out of the passenger side and shouted "police." He said his door banged into his left side, causing him to fire his .45-caliber pistol once in a "sympathetic reflex response."

The bullet pierced Culosi's side and then his aorta, killing him in seconds.

But the Culosi family's attorneys, Bernard J. DiMuro and Michael S. Lieberman, hired experts who offered a different version of events. They theorized that Bullock was actually eight to 10 feet away from Culosi, not beside his vehicle, based on the trajectory of the fatal bullet and the location of the shell casing near Culosi's body.

Bullock's attorney, David J. Fudala, said that the trajectory could have been affected by the angle of Culosi's posture and that the casing could have been blown or kicked down an incline to Culosi's position.

The Culosis' attorneys crafted two videos showing their version of the shooting, and Brinkema ruled this month that they could be shown to a jury. The videos were released Tuesday.

Brinkema also ruled that three experts, analyzing the shooting from the Culosis' perspective, could testify. Settlement talks then began in earnest.

A trial would have explored not only the Culosis' view of the shooting, but also the police view of Culosi. Court records show that Fudala wanted to introduce evidence of Culosi's gambling history and cocaine use, including the fact that police found $36,500 cash in his apartment. But Brinkema ruled that was irrelevant and not admissible, unless the Culosis' attorneys tried to challenge the reason for the police investigation. The judge said the trial should focus solely on the shooting.

Then-Fairfax Commonwealth's Attorney Robert F. Horan Jr. ruled in March 2006 that Bullock could not be charged with a crime, and a federal civil rights investigation also cleared him. The Culosis sued Bullock, the county, Chief David M. Rohrer and Lt. James Kellam, the head of the SWAT team, in January 2007. Brinkema dismissed all but Bullock as defendants in the case, citing a Virginia law that provides immunity to government entities. Appeals of those rulings delayed the trial until Tuesday.

Rohrer suspended Bullock without pay for three weeks and removed him from the SWAT team. Bullock is now a detective with the department. He did not attend the hearing Tuesday and did not respond to a request for comment.

After the settlement, Rohrer said, "I'm still saddened by Mr. Culosi's death, and I continue to think about the family, who have my utmost respect." He said the procedures for authorizing SWAT teams have been formalized, requiring written documentation and approval by supervisors, rather than phone calls. He said that most arrests and search warrants in Fairfax do not involve tactical units, and he stood by the police investigation of the shooting.

DiMuro said that of the $2 million payment, Fairfax will pay $1 million from its self-insurance fund, and the other $1 million will come from a statewide insurance pool funded by all Virginia counties. Bullock's legal fees and damages are covered by the county.

exactly, jeff. the military was NEVER supposed to be used against citizens. SWAT is exactly that. paramilitary at best. that is why this stuff happens and that guy in roy was murdered.

We have a police review board and Office Of Professional Standards here in Chicago. The problem is the review board often exonerates or reduces charges against offending officers. The OPS is a rubber stamp,has no subpoena powers,does not hold public hearings, and if it makes policy recommendation's they are not made public. The OPS does not provide any information regarding the subject officer, where the incident took place or the district where the officer involved is assigned. Until this whole process becomes more transparent trust will not be restored.

Why are police so terrified of any oversight outside of their own little clique? The rest of us undergo and accept such scrutiny in our professional lives as a matter of course. The common complaint from their side is that the rest of us just don't understand police work. So be it - but we do understand, and can recognize, common thuggery and abuse when we see it. I think that is what they are afraid of.

Like I said above, we have historically given them the benefit of the doubt, and we should. The modern day proliferation of cheap video recording equipment has, however, begun to paint a far different picture. Hell, police in many jurisdictions have now even sued to block citizens' rights to record them in action, claiming - rather extraordinarily so - that they have some "right to privacy" while performing their duties.

They just can't afford to have citizens continuing to recored them as they shoot restrained suspects (BART shooting), "kick the Mexican piss outa" them (Seattle case caught on video), slam the wrong guy into a brick wall causing permanent brain damage (another recent Seattle case, settled today where Seattle will pay the victim over $2m), repeatedly kick a surrendering, prostrate young man in the ribs (another recent Seattle case, wherein the officer got the wrong guy and kicked the bejeebers out of him, captured on a convenience store camera), or night stick a prostrate, restrained man repeatedly in the kidneys and ribs, again a recent Seattle case... and on and on. One is left to wonder how many "resisting arrest", or "fell down the stairs", or "banged his head on the roof getting into the back of the car" explanations from the past were valid. Benefit of the doubt, yes, but video after video says otherwise.

Seattle is on a roll - since the disintegration of the citizens' review board, the Seattle PD has come under ever increasing scrutiny for its unusual number of complaints about police brutality. The ACLU has now asked for a Justice Department investigation of endemic brutality against minority citizens. Just the ones actually caught on video are appalling. One is left to wonder how many more occur every day. Maybe that's why the neighbors looking out through their blinds are hoping the officer "gets shot in the face...".

Jeff... reading all that makes me remember the image I made...
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1295680921.jpg

Such unprofessional conduct has been the norm here in SoCal for some time... That myself and others record officers during any interactions. A recording is an honest witness.

He hijacked another thread...or did he?
 

So much for talk about hijacking threads and obfuscation just for the sake thereof. This discussion is headed in the only direction it could logically go. We must find solutions to a systemic problem which exists primarily in urban areas all across America. I like the idea of video cameras on the surface, however I think we can all agree that this alone will not resolve the problem. One possible solution is a system that identifies problem officers whose records indicate they require additional oversight,training,or counseling,with the goal of keeping them from becoming worse. Now if we could just get the FOP and union to cooperate.:(

I love this image.

Its been my netbook wallpaper ever since you first posted it. :D

Thanks!

It has existed for at least 21 years. It is called EWS in California. Early Warning System. Every State has some form of it and has for decades.

You have an opinion on everything and knowledge of nothing.

I know enough to surmise that you need counseling my friend... and I think others here would agree with that assessment... How else would one explain your 'love" of that photo?

And here is an example of what happens when you don't decide to go "high risk."

Dallas SWAT is a sharp unit. But mistakes can be made during threat assessment, as well as at any other point during a tactical operation.


SWAT veteran shot officer in raid, police say


08:52 PM CST on Tuesday, March 21, 2006

By JASON TRAHAN / The Dallas Morning News

A veteran SWAT officer accidentally shot a colleague in the leg and probably shot himself in the fingertip during a violent confrontation at a suspected drug house last month, according to a Dallas police investigation.

Sgt. Kenneth Wilkins, 50, a 23-year department veteran, has asked to be removed from the tactical division because of the incident. A separate internal review will determine whether the supervisor violated any police policies.

On the morning of Feb. 16, SWAT officers surrounded a house in the 1200 block of Oak Park Drive in the Red Bird area to serve a Drug Enforcement Administration search and arrest warrant in connection with a suspected methamphetamine ring.

On Tuesday, the department's special investigation unit found that SWAT team members Adolfo Perez and Harry Deltufo were shot in the bullet resistant vest and ear, respectively, by a gunman firing through the door of the home. Both men recovered from their injuries.

Investigators determined that as officers returned fire, Sgt. Wilkins accidentally shot Senior Cpl. Dale Hackbarth in the back of the leg. Cpl. Hackbarth's injury was the most severe but was not life-threatening.

Sgt. Wilkins did not return phone messages Tuesday.

"As with any friendly-fire incident, a thorough review will include an examination of managerial, training and policy issues to see where we as a department can improve our performance and minimize the chance of something like this happening again," said Lt. Rick Watson, a police spokesman.

Deputy Chief Jesse Reyes, commander of the homeland security and special operations division, which includes SWAT, said Sgt. Wilkins is temporarily assigned to communications.

"He has returned to light-duty work," Chief Reyes said. "He's going to offer some input as to where he would like to go, and the department will evaluate those options and take appropriate action."

The department also is examining tactics used in last month's operation, particularly the decision to use a loudspeaker to announce the officers' presence before serving the warrant.

The DEA chose not to seek a "no-knock" warrant that would have allowed the Dallas SWAT team to go into the home with no warning.

Judges can grant such warrants when investigators believe that the people they are trying to arrest or search will try to destroy evidence or that they present an extreme risk.

Authorities had intelligence that the men inside the home, which was surrounded by a tall metal fence, had surveillance cameras and weapons.

CA Also has PRAR - Public Records Act Request [Process]. You can request logs of every incident, calls leading up to that incident, dispatch logs, internal reports (e-mail, calls, bulletins, policies) involving an incident.

AFAIK anyone can request these records with enough details of the incident (specific time/date/names).

The other rampant problem is 'qualified immunity'... But that's a whole 'nother issue.

Silverwhaletail, glad you find that pic hilarious. After Jeff's recent post, it's kind of hard to add more emphasis to the key notes...

Enjoy your ignorance.

You're kidding right? Thats only a rubber stamp law. Within CPRA there are so many exemptions to public disclosure its basically nonfunctional. Here is just one example. Any record pertaining to pending litigation to witch the City is a party until the litigation is adjudicated or settled. Yeah...sounds real open to me...

WideBody 911... that image is CRAVING to be 'shopped...