Local SWAT raid
Good article here. Official version is that the man they killed (who'd served two tours in Iraq and had a clean record threw down on them with a rifle and said something to the effect that he had something for them. Now it develops the rifle was on "safe," hardly the mark of a suspect ready to go down shooting. And I suspect the statement he supposedly made is going to be either (1) not something he said, my main bet, or (2) he was under the impression that the people who'd smashed down his door and stormed in were robbers.
You have no right to resist a entry even if the entry is unlawful...Indiana Supreme Court May, 2011.
"People have no right to resist if police officers illegally enter their home, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled in a decision that overturns centuries of common law."
"The court issued its 3-2 ruling on Thursday, contending that allowing residents to resist officers who enter their homes without any right would increase the risk of violent confrontation. If police enter a home illegally, the courts are the proper place to protest it, Justice Steven David said."
It's the end of the world as we know it!
Posted by: Anonymous at May 29, 2011 04:07 PM
some times you are going to take a stand, legal or not. it is the principle of the thing. period.
Posted by: damdoc at May 29, 2011 05:09 PM
There's a kind of "heads we win/tails you lose" dynamic in play here. If the guy had fired, even only after the police opened fire, then the public story would have been of a justified shooting. But as long as prosecutors and juries continue to give SWAT teams a pass on murder and manslaughter, doing the right thing and holding fire just lets SWAT teams continue on with a deeply flawed and immoral doctrine.
I've had the thought that the only way to end routine no-knock, militarized searches is for law-abiding gun owners to start treating all home invasions as criminals unless absolutely certain otherwise. But that's a hard thing to ask when your family's in the house also. And less important morally but still critical, I'm not actually sure of how that would play in the media and the broader public.
Posted by: Dave R at May 30, 2011 11:35 AM
Comment (paraphrased) seen on Reason.com's blog:
Political rhetoric does not kill people; Sheriff Dupnik's department kills people.
Posted by: Anon at May 30, 2011 06:40 PM
This crap won't end until some commissioners get fired. Look up the Gypsy Joker's raid in Portland in the '70s.
Until there is some real retribution, the police state crap will continue.
Posted by: Kristopher at May 31, 2011 01:30 PM
This poor fellow could have been selling crack to 1st graders but he did not deserve this treatment.
Posted by: 475okh at May 31, 2011 06:13 PM
The justification for these no knock raids is that the suspect will flush the drugs down the toilet.
Am I supposed to believe that dealer can flush pounds of pot down a US Congress approved, low flow toilet?
If the amount involved is small enough to be flushed down the toilet, do we really need to involve the SWAT team?
Posted by: Peter at June 1, 2011 09:13 AM
Combine this with the increasing number of home invaders who are impersonating police and you have a no-win scenario. The best one-size-fits-all solution (which is what your reaction will default to under stress) is to fight and retreat, buying time until you can figure out what is going on and who the bad guys are. Sadly, I think the only thing that will alter SWAT doctrine is the death of SWAT cops, not the firing of some upper-level bureaucrats.
Posted by: Jeff at June 1, 2011 03:47 PM
There is talk that the AR-15 that was next to his body was a throw down. Information on this murder is very slow in coming. Do not lose sight that there was no search warrant for this man or anyone in his family or his address. What we have here is nothing short of state murder.
Posted by: AvgJoe at June 4, 2011 09:16 AM