Police video shows how drug raid turned deadly [SWAT v. golf club]

sltrib.com ^ | 27 Dec 2010 | Erin Alberty

[smokingfrog]

Shouts break the evening silence.

“Police! Search warrant!”

Officers burst through the door. A man appears across the room. Metal glints from his clasped hands. Shots echo from a police-issue Glock 22. Todd Blair slumps to the floor.

“Five seconds,” said Blair’s mother, Arlean. “In five seconds, he was dead.”

Officers entered Blair’s home Sept. 16 during a drug raid when he stepped into the hall, wielding a golf club, police video shows. Ogden police Sgt. Troy Burnett shot Blair, 45, in the head and chest.

The shooting was deemed legally justified.

[freedomwarrior998]

You really can’t comprehend at all. The point Justice Thomas was making was the the common law and history required that one knock and announce. Hence failure to knock and announce is unreasonable UNLESS the police can justify the decision via exigent circumstances. You just can stop reading the opinion and cherry pick portions out that you like while ignoring the rest. The holding of the case is that no knocks aren’t permitted unless supported by exigent circumstances. If an officer has reasonable suspicion that knocking will expose someone to the risk of injury or death or that evidence will be destroyed, then exigent circumstances exist. Because the 4th amendment only prohibits UNREASONABLE searches and seizures, and because exigent circumstances make what would ordinarily be unreasonable reasonable, such warrants are permissible in very limited situations.

You want to rewrite the constitution to say something that it doesn’t. Then you cowardly sit back and throw around ad hominem attacks against anyone who dares to disagree with you. You seem to arrogantly believe that you know more than Justice Thomas, the Framers and the Supreme Court.

Why should your legal theory hold water? With logic and reason, and without using any fallacious reasoning, make your case. If you can’t then obviously you aren’t credible.

[freedomwarrior998]

You really can’t comprehend at all. The point Justice Thomas was making was the the common law and history required that one knock and announce. Hence failure to knock and announce is unreasonable UNLESS the police can justify the decision via exigent circumstances. You just can stop reading the opinion and cherry pick portions out that you like while ignoring the rest. The holding of the case is that no knocks aren’t permitted unless supported by exigent circumstances. If an officer has reasonable suspicion that knocking will expose someone to the risk of injury or death or that evidence will be destroyed, then exigent circumstances exist. Because the 4th amendment only prohibits UNREASONABLE searches and seizures, and because exigent circumstances make what would ordinarily be unreasonable reasonable, such warrants are permissible in very limited situations.

You want to rewrite the constitution to say something that it doesn’t. Then you cowardly sit back and throw around ad hominem attacks against anyone who dares to disagree with you. You seem to arrogantly believe that you know more than Justice Thomas, the Framers and the Supreme Court.

Why should your legal theory hold water? With logic and reason, and without using any fallacious reasoning, make your case. If you can’t then obviously you aren’t credible.

[TigersEye]

This is a silly response. Roe was wrong not because it came from the Supreme Court, rather it was wrong because the Court didn't follow the Constitution, Natural Law, Common Law or any other authority or precedent to come to the decision. It simply invented law whole-cloth.

If that convoluted straw-man works for Roe v. Wade then it works for every SCOTUS decision. Your brain is a failure.

[TigersEye]

Hence failure to knock and announce is unreasonable UNLESS the police can justify the decision via exigent circumstances.

Exactly. In that case they failed on all counts. Justice Thomas failed. You fail!

[KEVLAR]

“such warrants are permissible in very limited situations.”

Not that limited evidently.

3000 no knock warrants in 1981.....50,000 per year as of 2005.

The police will always invent some “exigent circumstances” to support the use of whatever tools they have at their disposal.

[behzinlea]

In many places, law enforcement officers have become overly aggressive and trigger-happy, and now have a serious image problem because of it. They're too damned lazy to use their brains, so they think with their trigger fingers instead. Gunning down other human beings in close quarters is intoxicating to them--the ultimate endorphin rush.

You blame communists. I don't know about that. I know what I see. I blame the cops who act hamfistedly like the jackass who gunned down the dumb meth head in this video. It also happened at Ruby Ridge and Waco, and more recently at a COSTCO in Las Vegas.

You seem to think SWAT is all powerful. The BATF had the same bloated opinion of itself at Waco. Remember this image?

Things went downhill fast for the BATF from that point on.

When freedom-loving people feel sufficiently threatened by their own "protectors," they tend to find ways to counter the threat.

Law Enforcement needs to improve its image. It can start by firing thuggish, brainless Rambos like the cop in this video.

[freedomwarrior998]

So you can’t justify your position. All you can do is throw around insults. Its hilarious that you can’t see the difference between Roe, for which there is no constitutional basis, and Wilson, for which there is textual and historic support.

[Dayman]

I'm sick of seeing rogue cops kill people in raids. If a door is knocked down without warning the victim should start shooting immediately. It doesn't matter who is on the other end. Until the body count starts going up for the police crap like no-knock warrants will continue.

The second amendment covers explosives, not just firearms. They can also be used to prevent entry if necessary.

[TigersEye]

I did justify it you're just too dumb to see it. You also can't tell the difference between an ad-hominem and an objective assessment of character based on your own words.

The bottom line is you haven't changed my mind at all. If LEOs break down my door unannounced there won't be any legal theories, judges or juries there just them and me. My decision is made regardless of whether Justice Thomas agrees with it or not. It must be time again to post a public legal notice, as I have done once or twice a year here.

This is a public legal notice.

I do not recognize no-knock warrants as Constitutional.

All home invasions will be met with lethal force as I see fit to apply it.

Good luck to you.

[KEVLAR]

“So you can’t justify your position.”

Seems like it was done in post 180.

[Apogee]

I considered law enforcement very seriously at one point.

I ultimately rejected it for myself, because I view the job as described: law enforcement. Not legislation, not picking and choosing. It would be my job to write the ticket, execute the warrant, etc. and the job of the accused to defend himself against it (if he survived the fog of the encounter).
While I want to applaud people who do not enforce immoral laws on the one hand, I also recall a story once heard of a game warden who had to arrest someone in a poor family for poaching (”you all decide whom”), because he law had been broken, and it was his job. But ever after, meat showed up on their doorstep - his mix of integrity and compassion.

At this point, I could not enforce a great number of laws on the books, and so I would rather seek to get them changed.

At some other point, prudence may dictate that numbers of us should become “them” in order to save the people as you suggest. I am not sure we are there yet, my hat’s off to you if you are trying to get in position to be one of those people when it becomes needful.

In the meantime - to my newfound friend who boasts of his SWAT team being able to “clear” a regular sized house in five seconds (in training - are they really keeping weapons on targets at full speed, making real “shoot or don’t shoot” judgements, and avoiding obstacles in a house with unknown plans?): I wish them the best. May they always be in the side of the right. And remember - There are lots of things that can slow an entry - design wise or other wise - and I only have to know where my entry way is and fill it up, you have to find me to fill me up. So please make sure that you are at the right house, or my family and yours may grieve a long time - because I fear that my first response may be the wrong one, at four a.m. in the morning.

[Apogee]

See my post to freedomwarrior.
OTOH - if some guy swings a golf club at me - I’m gonna call it a lethal threat and respond accordingly.
It’s a no win situation once the decision is made to enter, ergo, the decision should not be made.
I would think we should apply the same reasoning we do to drunk driving: you decided to drink when you probably “had” to drive. You decided to drive while in a state not conducive to good decision making. You are at fault.
By analogy - the person who decided on a no knock, essentially warrantless, raid, ought to be responsible for everything that followed.
But he won’t be.

[dragnet2]

OTOH - if some guy swings a golf club at me - I’m gonna call it a lethal threat and respond accordingly.

Nice try, but the homeowner did not "swing" his golf club at anyone...

In addition, this was not a situation where it was "You" alone, without a dozen helmeted, heavily armed paramilitary police.

Apples and oranges...

They could have easily pepper sprayed and tased this guy...

[dragnet2]

the person who decided on a no knock, essentially warrantless, raid, ought to be responsible for everything that followed. But he won’t be.

Agree....

[Apogee]

I apologize: I am not willing to sign up or sign in to prove I am over 18, so I can’t see the video.
I shall amend my statement a bit. If I perceive that someone is about to swing a club... The only issue for a jury is whether my split second response was “reasonable.” As you have seen the video, I may have to defer to your judgment.
If the officer had any way to articulate a reasonable fear of assault, it all follows. Again, the ultimate fault for this lies with the decision to enter this way - it is bound to set up “miscommunication” or hasty and deadly decision making.

These things just should not be done unless life is already on the line. Evidence is not worth it, IMHO. If you think someone will flush it, drop something in the clean out valve, or better yet, get them some other way, leaving yourself free to gather evidence at your leisure. Can’t get it after all. Too bad, try harder next time, life is of more value.

Just thinkin’ out loud.

Merry new year

[Apogee]

Dogs can be taken out silently. But are a good start. Watch geese have a long and storied role, as well, from the hills of Appalachia to ancient Rome. May actually be harder to shut up.
High windows along with your thorn bushes are good.
Wind closets and back porches with exterior doors can slow things down. Strategic obstacles, and funneling, are also good indoors. Bell on the knob?

As to the rest of the post, I’ll leave it alone.

[Tolsti2]

It doesn’t seem really ‘reasonable’ because of the range. The guy with the club was at least 12 feet back from the door.

I know people can cover ground in 1 or 2 seconds, but they hit him before he starts to move. The light is on, the club is raised at 12 feet or so, about 1 second later 3 shots.

IMO if you have an aimed weapon they need to at least begin a charge to fire in any situation. If a CCW did what they did on camera they’d be up for murder in any state.

[TigersEye]

I apologize: I am not willing to sign up or sign in to prove I am over 18, so I can’t see the video.

FWIW I didn't have to sign up or sign in to see the video.

[freedomwarrior998]

I did justify it you're just too dumb to see it.

No, you did not. You just name-called and threw a tantrum.

You also can't tell the difference between an ad-hominem and an objective assessment of character based on your own words.

Ah, so you are psychic too?

The bottom line is you haven't changed my mind at all. If LEOs break down my door unannounced there won't be any legal theories, judges or juries there just them and me. My decision is made regardless of whether Justice Thomas agrees with it or not. It must be time again to post a public legal notice, as I have done once or twice a year here.

Ah, I see, you are a law unto yourself.

This is a public legal notice. I do not recognize no-knock warrants as Constitutional. All home invasions will be met with lethal force as I see fit to apply it. Good luck to you.

Good luck with that. You'll end up dead.

[dragnet2]

I apologize

No problem friend..

They just murdered this guy...He didn't have a chance, and was basically up against a well armed platoon of paramilitary soldiers, while holding a golf club...

In fact, they shot him 3 times, once in the head...He was dead before he hit the floor.....2 seconds later, the dead guy was told to, "Get on the floor".