Posted on 05/06/2010 9:01:22 PM PDT by The Magical Mischief Tour
When Columbia Police SWAT officers kicked in Jonathan Whitworth's door, they didn't find what they were looking for but drew a worldwide audience.
Acting on an 8-day-old warrant on Feb. 11, at least eight officers raided Whitworth's home at 1501 Kinloch Court in southwest Columbia on the suspicion that he was dealing a significant amount of marijuana. But there were no drugs. The tip on Whitworth came from an informant who the police chief said apparently wasn't consulted before the raid was carried out.
Another problem: During the raid, officers fatally shot Whitworth's pit bull and wounded a Welsh corgi before arresting Whitworth, whose wife and 7-year-old were also home.
Now, as the department nears the end of its internal investigation of the matter, it is facing widening ripples of consequences of a story that has gone viral. A video of the raid had received almost 295,000 views on YouTube as of 8 p.m. Thursday as Whitworth's attorney said his client was contemplating legal action against the department.
"We're reviewing everything right now, and we're keeping every possibility open," Jeff Hilbrenner said. He said Whitworth had not yet filed a formal complaint with the Police Department, and Whitworth's family had been put in an awkward position.
"They know that it’s come to the attention of people all over America," Hilbrenner said. "They’ve been contacted by people they don’t know offering support from all over the country. They don’t want that to be how they’re known. They would prefer to go on living their life as a young couple with a young son."
The attention has been much grimmer for the Police Department. On Thursday afternoon, Chief Ken Burton held a news conference with Mayor Bob McDavid at Columbia City Hall to combat what he repeatedly called the Internet's mixing of "fact with fiction."
"We're getting death threats from literally all over the world," Burton said, declining to release the names of the officers involved.
Burton sought to put an end to rumors that the pit bull was in a cage when the officers shot it. He also said the corgi had been shot in the paw by accident because it was next to the pit bull when the larger dog attacked the officers coming in the front door. The pit bull ran away and again threatened officers, who shot it, Burton said.
In the video, "you hear that dog (the corgi) screaming, and that isn't pleasant to listen to," Burton said.
As for Whitworth — who pleaded guilty on April 20 to a misdemeanor charge of unlawful use of drug paraphernalia and was fined $300 — Burton said a federal drug conviction and a history of combative arrests prompted the use of heavy police force. Burton regretted the department waited so long to execute the warrant.
"I don’t think we should have run it eight days later," Burton said. "We should have run it that day. We simply didn’t do it. So we own that, and we’re very sorry it turned out the way it did. None of those officers wanted to hurt that dog — or any dog, as a matter of fact — but it was an unfortunate situation.”
As McDavid stood next to him, Burton said he had changed department policy to conduct raids immediately after a search warrant is obtained. Burton said the department moved slowly in Whitworth's case because the SWAT team is made up of part-time members who hold other jobs within the department.
But he said the SWAT team had no policy on how to deal with dogs.
When asked whether police would have conducted the raid if they knew Whitworth's son was present, Burton was equivocal. "I would have looked at the situation and the circumstances that day," he said.
Burton said he expected an internal review of the matter to be finished as soon as Monday. There were notes of ambivalence in a chief who largely stood by his officers.
"Frankly, we wouldn’t be standing here if an officer had been bit by a pit bull instead of the reverse happening," Burton said.
He added, “We probably could have been involved in a shooting in there with a person and not been given this much attention, but because it was a dog ...”
Lt. Scott Young, who is in charge of the department's SWAT team, said he couldn't comment specifically on the incident because of the ongoing investigation. As for the department's policy on handling dogs, he said. "If they're aggressive and violent towards our officers, we'll shoot 'em," though he said it was "rare."
What about using a Taser?
"It’s just not as effective on dogs as it is on humans," Scott said. "An aggressive dog is a very tough animal. ... The dog certainly suffers no aftereffects (from the electric shock). As soon as the five seconds is up, they’re right back at it."
The video, depicting a paramilitary-style police raid on a suspected marijuana dealer, highlighted a separate issue. In 2004, the city voted to pass an ordinance that stated: "The limited resources of law enforcement should be directed primarily toward crimes of violence or property loss. The enforcement of laws against marijuana shall be among the lower priorities of law enforcement."
But Scott said the ordinance was intended for misdemeanor levels of possession. "We do not do search warrants based on information that there’s a small amount of marijuana there," he said.
Heavily armed raids are conducted on drug dealers because of a "high frequency of violent offenders and high-frequency of weapons involved," Scott said. Still, most of those go off well.
"We’ve had years where we’ve done over 100 (raids) a year, and the vast vast bulk of them are without incident, with no violence, no resistance, no problems," Scott said. "We’re always reviewing our tactics and methods to make sure we’re safer for everybody."
As for the video, during Thursday's news conference, Burton said cameras on SWAT officers — already common for downtown patrol units — were still in the experimental phase. Scott embraced the idea.
"We video all of them that we can," Scott said. "If a person were to be resistant towards us, it would be good to have that on video. Video gets us out of a lot more complaints and accusations than they get us into."
Combative arrest? What does that mean? Does the Chief mean this guy was arrested for violence? Ya know that could mean he simply pulled his arm away after being grabbed by a LEO...
In court they'll be forced to reveal if this guy had a violent criminal history. It'll be interesting to see where this goes from here...I'll follow it...
I'll be honest with ya.
This video has now been seen by nearly 425,000 people on the Internet...If the LEOs continue with this type of violent military tactics, for relatively minor, non-violent crime, they're going to have big problems in the future.
Bet the rent.
But any department is susceptible to corruption or negligent administration: the rot starts at the top. No argument from me.
“Can you cite any single incident where a dog killed a cop in SWAT raid?”
Nope. The cops have superior tools, and use them under the circumstances discussed. Testimony to the effectiveness of the tactic. Sad; but most often, necessary.
Y’know, if these types of raids were stopped, the consequences would be dire. The form is a rational response to the circumstances. And remember, NASA has lost two shuttles...and an Apollo crew, in a “Zero Error” environment. Stuff happens. 30,000 people die every year in MV wrecks. Stop driving, sir?? You might kill someone! [Be rational!]
A dynamic raid for minor offense is just wrong. I never heard of such a thing. However, arrest warrants for misdemeanorin’ hombres who default court, and have a violent history, are sometimes approached that way. Sometimes the judges get pissed that cops don't actively pursue defaulters. [Stop letting them out on the streets pending their forever trials, sirs’, says I]
The bumps come when info is bad, or addresses are wrong, etc.
Great care is taken. No cop wants to get involved in a cluster that can send him to jail or cost him all he has.
But sometimes stuff goes wrong. One must weigh the bad and good...reasonably...to determine prudence of such measures. That has been done...and judicial and legislative check are such that, if things are as bad as made out to be by the YouTube activists, the practice would be curtailed; but the data and real-life experience of learned men deny the purported crisis view.
Is it against the law to bar your door so it cannot be broken down? What do they do if they can’t get in?
I'm now a constable, and I have arrest powers in my state. Would that it devolved upon me the effect his arrest, you can bet I'd be bashing the door at 4am...and I'd shoot the freakin’ dog, too. He has nuthin’ to lose. And I won't be poked with his knife or bullet while distracted... wrestling with his animal.
Attitude? You betcha! Survival. I wanna see another day. And I don't wanna kill nobody...legit or otherwise, either.
A window into my mind that might illuminate the discussion.
“What do they do if they can’t get in?”
Plan ‘B’.
Yep, and the video substantiated there were no guns, basically no dope, no violence from the suspect, yet pets were shot, and a 7 year old boy was present while shots were being fired by the LEOs within the home...
This event clearly depicted this military style raid was not only unreasonable, but extremely very unsafe for the innocent's in the home and neighbors adjacent to this property.
This is the type of raid you'd expect when searching for murder suspects or terrorist.
I agree. But the fault does not lie with the SWAT Team. They went by the book, I think. [except, maybe, ‘in the night-time’...they knocked!???? But states differ in requirements, maybe???]
The trouble is with the informant, information, delay, and vetting of circumstances: the judge signed a fresh warrant; the police administration fumbled. There is legal culpability there, I believe. Information has to be fresh; no unnecessary delay is allowed...exactly to avoid circumstances like this.
That is, the SWAT team performs a certain way. They are a tool, and respond in that fashion upon orders and direction of police administration. The errors occurred at desks...by those authorized to deploy that tool.
As for the rest of your post, it's gibberish.
We basically agree...
This is the type of raid you'd expect when searching for murder suspects or terrorist.”
I must, upon further reflection, take issue with that part:
Administration looked at the circumstances, and arrest reports for the subject. And, coupled with the knowledge that he had a prior conviction, assessed the situation as requiring dynamic entry to ensure safety. An independent third party...the magistrate....agreed.
Many cops have been shot to death by offenders perceived as far less dangerous than murderers or terrorists.
Had the warrant been served when fresh, they might have bagged the quantity of pot alluded to by the informant.
I do not preclude the possibility that the act was overkill for a sleepy town. Maybe some irresponsible decision-making. I don't have enough information. Juries will decide the matter....correctly, I think.
“So it’s self fulfilling: we do it because we like to and we like it because we do it.”
You understand what you like, and like what you understand.
:^)
LOL
“I thought that SWAT teams were designed for life-and-death situations (armed kidnappings, hostage situations, and so on). Not potheads.”
Enough SWAT teams act like the bad guys in BATF to give SWAT teams bad PR and in some cases, a bad name.
My son is a Deputy Sheriff and ex-US Marine Sergeant. He has also worked with SWAT teams locally. He usually volunteered to be the first one in – he had confidence in his own capability, and preferred that to having someone else be first in. He never shot a dog. And they never got any bad PR for what they did. Neither suspects nor deputies were not killed.
These things can be done correctly, or they can be misused by bad training, bad leadership, or bad use of this approach to law and order in our society.
Waco is an example of misused power and authority. If they wanted David Koresh, he could have been had any day of the week away from the compound by arresting him on one of his frequent trips into town. Clinton, Janet Reno & Wesley Clark chose to make it a big thing by attacking the compound with full armament. They, the administration, got what they wanted – death and destruction, including women and children. BATF was used in this murderous raid. Read more here…
http://www.serendipity.li/waco.html
I would LOVE to know where you got your ‘once a year’ info from.
“Is it against the law to bar your door so it cannot be broken down? What do they do if they can’t get in?”
The first guy to go in will likely be armed with a 12 ga loaded with a slug, then maybe shot, then another slug. The first one is to blow away the door in a case like this. Armed perps threatening on the other side of the door can be taken out with the next slug...they will not get up.
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.