Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

WATCH: Police Kill Man In Drug Raid Gone Wrong
worldnewsmania ^

Posted on 01/18/2011 2:17:18 PM PST by darkside321

Utah police shot and killed a man within seconds of storming his parents' home, video of the raid shows. The police had a warrant to search for drugs, but found only a small amount of pot and an empty vial that had apparently contained meth.

Local media report that Todd Blair, 45, was a drug addict rather than a dealer, according to friends and family.

In the video, Blair can be seen holding a golf club above his head as police smash through his door. Within seconds, without demanding Blair drop the iron or lay down, Weber-Morgan Strike Force Sgt. Troy Burnett fires three shots into him. The local prosecutor has deemed the killing justified, but his family is planning a federal lawsuit, arguing that police had plenty of alternatives.

Blair's death raises the question of why multiple heavily-armed officers were sent to raid a drug addict -- and why Weber and Morgan counties in Utah would even need a "Narcotics Strike Force." Local police forces are able to keep to property they seize in drug raids, often without the necessity of a conviction, creating a perverse incentive to reinvest in military equipment and carry out additional raids.

The killer, Sgt. Burnett, had previously told a law-enforcement magazine that he and fellow officers were trained to shoot quickly and at close range. Burnett had previously put the training to use by shooting and killing an armed suspect in 2008.

"Maybe a month before this [2008 shooting], we did our qualification and this kind of scenario was played out in live fire training where we had to quickly draw and fire at close range," Burnett said at the time. "It wasn't quite identical, but it was close...

(Excerpt) Read more at worldnewsmania.com ...


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: banglist; donutwatch; jbt; jbts; policestate; rapeofliberty; swat; swatassholes; toddblair; tyranny
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-126 next last
To: allmendream

A shotgun? Against body armor? A slug would probably break some major ribs and make the guy WISH he were dead.


12ga. Brenneke Special Forces Short Mag 2 3/4" 1 1/4oz.

81 posted on 01/18/2011 3:51:05 PM PST by EdReform (Oath Keepers - Guardians of the Republic - Honor your oath - Join us: www.oathkeepers.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Onelifetogive

Ok well then I apologize


82 posted on 01/18/2011 3:53:05 PM PST by Weird Tolkienish Figure
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Fido969

>Cops should have stayed home that day. Didn’t do much “protecting the public.”
>I guess they “felt that their life was in danger.”
>Whenever you encounter a cop: MAKE SURE HE FEELS SAFE.
>When I was a kid, it was the job of the police to make the public feel safe. Somehow or other, that got turned around.

So, I should offer them some milk and cookies and perhaps a warm blanket?


83 posted on 01/18/2011 4:03:33 PM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

So, I should offer them some milk and cookies and perhaps a warm blanket?


They would have shot you because of the cookies.
You now cookies can be a dangerous weapon if thrown against some bulletproof body armor.
Sorry but the more often i watch this “clip” the more angry i get. Killers who hide behinde the state.
Unfortunately i´m pretty shure nothing will happen to them.


84 posted on 01/18/2011 4:16:46 PM PST by darkside321
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: EdReform
Ah yes, the ever versatile shotgun! An answer to every problem. But with conventional rounds, a shotgun is not too effective against body armor.

My brother and I used to talk about how a guy with a shotgun and some modified shells could kill more than half of the Justice League (kryptonite shell-Superman, yellow slug- Geen Lantern, buckshot - Wonderwoman (block THAT with your bracers!)).

Ok, break out the pocket protectors I AM a geek!

85 posted on 01/18/2011 4:17:23 PM PST by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: darkside321
I'm sure Sgt Burnett will get a lot of 'attaboys' at the next choir practice, along with admiring glances as he carves the second notch into his grip.

But alas, it will be all wiped out by the "oh shit" moment, when the choir notices he forgot to kill the dog.

86 posted on 01/18/2011 4:20:10 PM PST by diogenes ghost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GlockThe Vote
Once again....your "most" is subjective.

FWIW-

87 posted on 01/18/2011 4:24:45 PM PST by Osage Orange (MOLON LABE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: isthisnickcool

” I was not impressed with this SWAT team. No reason to shoot. 8+ man team and the guy was armed with a stick, err, golf club. Pu$$ies!”

But everyone hates intermediate weapons like the taser....


88 posted on 01/18/2011 4:24:52 PM PST by goseminoles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: darkside321

Wow. Just damn. The fact that a cop isn’t going to prison, and a squad isn’t being disbanded over this is truly amazing to me. Murder. State sanctioned murder.


89 posted on 01/18/2011 4:26:30 PM PST by SoDak (Won't you pour me a Cuban Breeze, Gretchen)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

If you hit the head a shotgun is effective! “your” helmet will not protect you! But then again i have my steyr aug at home. A .223 full metal jacket will penetrate every police armor.
Not that it would help me this much (because i still would get killed if swat storms my house) but at least i would die knowing that i took one of this “nazis” with me.


90 posted on 01/18/2011 4:27:27 PM PST by darkside321
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj

>>This is precisely the reason for my discomfort at the roadside License / Insurance / Registration checkpoints that seem to be in vogue today. By design, that technique assumes GUILT by the drivers randomly on that route and exclusively allows passage once credentials are examined.
>
>I don’t like these either. But at least there is some plausible justification based upon the notion that driving is a licensed activity. Occupying ones own home is in no way similar.

That’s where you’re wrong.
In 2005, there was a case called Kelo v. New London in which the US Supreme Court ruled in favor of the city of New London. What had happened was New London had used eminent-domain to take Kelo’s house, which as I understand had no outstanding tax-debt, in order to turn the property over to a private developer. The justification the city gave for using eminent-domain on behalf of this private entity for fulfilling the “for public use” clause of the 5th Amendment was that a *projected* increase in tax-revenue from the private-developer’s project.

Put another way, the Supreme Court said that it is well-and-good for a government entity to take your house/property and give it to someone else because they THINK that it will generate more taxes. This means that you live in your own home only at the pleasure of the government.

Of course, I would love to see the members of the 2005 USSC brought up on charges of Conspiracy Against Rights for this incident:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000241——000-.html
The problem is that so many people believe that the Constitution is whatever the Supreme Court says it is, which is a logical absurdity because 1) the Constitution establishes the Supreme Court (and denies the ability of that court to amend or alter the Constitution) and 2) the Justices take an oath to support the Constitution; if the Constitution is whatever they say it is then that oath is to merely support/agree with whatever they say.


91 posted on 01/18/2011 4:29:06 PM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
I think Kelo was decidedly wrong, but it has nothing to do with Fourth Amendment rights.

ML/NJ

92 posted on 01/18/2011 4:32:25 PM PST by ml/nj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
I think Kelo was decidedly wrong, but it has nothing to do with Fourth Amendment rights.

ML/NJ

93 posted on 01/18/2011 4:32:25 PM PST by ml/nj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

Ah yes, the ever versatile shotgun! An answer to every problem. But with conventional rounds, a shotgun is not too effective against body armor.


I agree, and my first choice would be something in .308 or better for this kind of threat. However if all you have is the 12 ga, then you do have a few options beyond conventional rounds. That's all I was trying to point out.

94 posted on 01/18/2011 4:32:53 PM PST by EdReform (Oath Keepers - Guardians of the Republic - Honor your oath - Join us: www.oathkeepers.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: EdReform
Well thanks for the correction, I should have included my proviso about conventional rounds - didn't want our intrepid FReeper awaiting the JBT’s with inefficient or insufficient ammo! ;)
95 posted on 01/18/2011 4:34:59 PM PST by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj

Sure it does; if you have no right to your house then the government can arbitrarily say that it’s not your house and then claim that the 4th doesn’t protect you because you were not in your own home.... granted to do this they would need to ‘retrospectively’ lay claim to your house, but I do not think that that would hinder them much.

{My cynical opinion.}


96 posted on 01/18/2011 4:37:36 PM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: Onelifetogive

That is great advice, on the level of the individual, for living one’s life. But it’s a non-sequitur in regard to Constitutional principles and what we feel is appropriate behavior from government authorities. Even people who break the law should be afforded a reasonable protection of their civil rights. Especially when you consider that there are so many laws now that everyone is breaking at least one at any given time.


97 posted on 01/18/2011 4:39:26 PM PST by TigersEye (Who crashed the markets on 9/28/08 and why?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: darkside321
SWAT units are now wearing Level IV body armor, not soft Level III.

The heavier armor available is why I have several hundred rounds of 7.62x51 API. If the tungsten core doesn't get you, the 3,000 degree incendiary will. And if I live long enough, no body armor in existence stops a .338 at close range. Head shots are the best option, but I doubt you will have time to aim that well. Dark, the invaders have probably thrown their 'diversion' devices (nice euphemism for flash grenade), and you are the one caught off-guard, not them. The only thing that will save you is something that throws them off their well rehearsed invasion rhythm.

Introduce confusion and panic. That is what they are counting on you being consumed with. Return the favor, and you have a chance, however small, of winning the engagement.

98 posted on 01/18/2011 4:45:17 PM PST by ex 98C MI Dude (Alea Iacta Est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: ex 98C MI Dude

“The only thing that will save you is something that throws them off their well rehearsed invasion rhythm.”

Good advice. This guy might still be alive if he had an extra 5 seconds to figure out what was going on.

What a world we live in.


99 posted on 01/18/2011 4:52:57 PM PST by APatientMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: ex 98C MI Dude

Well sorry but a .223 FMJ fired from an assault rifle at close range is lethal. There is a chance that the “armor” will stop it (even the more powered 7,62) but this is far away from given, Again we are talking about military armor! and not civilian or police body armor. 2 or 3 hits from a .223 asault (at close range) rifle will kill you no matter what body armor you where.


100 posted on 01/18/2011 4:58:26 PM PST by darkside321
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-126 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson