4 officers disciplined for raiding wrong house, Tasering occupant

[Desertdog]

Maybe the homeowner will be able to move to a newer place with the settlement from this, I hope. They, the officers, not the county, should have to pay plenty for this type of f??? up.

SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/152013_wronghouse11.html

4 officers disciplined for raiding wrong house, Tasering occupant
Thursday, December 11, 2003

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

OKANOGAN -- Four officers have been disciplined after a raid in which police broke down the door to the wrong home and then jolted a man with a Taser.

Okanogan County Sheriff Frank Rogers refused to release the names of the officers: two deputies, a sergeant and a Colville Tribal Police detective.

Undersheriff Joe Somday said two deputies who planned the execution of the "no knock" search warrant received letters of reprimand and a sheriff's sergeant was given an oral reprimand for failing to promptly replace a broken door at the home after the Sept. 11 incident.

A Colville Tribal Police detective who received the search warrant also was disciplined, Tribal Police Chief Rory Gilliland said.

A sheriff's office investigation found officers did not use basic investigating skills when planning the raid at the home near Omak, and that the affidavit for a search warrant was flawed.

The investigation found the affidavit poorly described the trailer and incorrectly stated that landlords had confirmed a suspect lived in the trailer.

The officers were attempting to arrest a man wanted on Spokane County and Colville Tribal warrants. Instead, they broke through the door of a home next door and used a Taser on a man before realizing their mistake.

© 1998-2003 Seattle Post-Intelligencer

 

[P95Carry]

ANOTHER ''No Knock'' ...... and they got it wrong it seems. Guess the Tazer was a bonus ... better than bullets.

I smell an expensive law suit brewing.

 

[TarpleyG]

4 officers disciplined for raiding wrong house, shooting and killing occupant

What happens when this is the headline???

GT

 

[kbr80]

What happens if one of us makes a mistake defending ourselves. We get the SH#t end of the stick. The cops in question should be charged for aggravated assault. Just my opinion.

 

[AZRickD]

Let's not forget about the worthless judge who signed the defective warrant.

Rick

 

[TallPine]

Oh, but these kind of incidents "never happen" - according to some folks on THR.

 

[Glock-A-Roo]

sarcasm/

As a timesaving favor to THR members, I will post the obligatory response to such a thread:

"Well, you weren't there, we don't have all the information, the cops were just doing their jobs. All you "no-knock" paranoids should quit discussing.. I mean, second guessing... law enforcement tactics. This article has no implications regarding larger issues of freedom or the War on Some Drugs".

Too bad the resident hadn't hardened his home against forced entry, otherwise they could have charged him with "fortifying" his "compound".

/sarcasm

If a private citizen mistakenly assaulted a person he thought was a threat to him, do you think he'd receive merely a "letter of reprimand"...?

 

[Sean Smith]

Undersheriff Joe Somday said two deputies who planned the execution of the "no knock" search warrant received letters of reprimand and a sheriff's sergeant was given an oral reprimand for failing to promptly replace a broken door at the home after the Sept. 11 incident.

Color me unimpressed. "Oral reprimand"?

Since this won't be treated as the criminal offense that it is, I hope they get their pants sued off. I'm not a big "cops are jack-booted thugs!" ranter, but police shouldn't get away with this kind of goof-up with nothing but a slap on the wrist for it.

 

[hammer4nc]

glockaroo, you forget to post these gems:

*"anti-american literature was found in the home" (can substitute kiddie porn)

*"neigbors said the suspect was moody"

 

[Bill Hook]

Another example of solid policework.

 

[Nightfall]

A letter of reprimand for Tasering an innocent American.

I'm so glad we don't live in a police state.

 

[ravinraven]

Another no-knock item.

I was recently invited to be on a federal jury. During questioning, it was determined that I was a bit too interested in the constitution to make a good jury member. However, one funny thing did happen.

This was a WOD case. War On Drugs.

One woman was asked if she'd ever had any contact with DEA agents.

"Yes," she said. "I was sitting in my apartment in Tampa[I think], Florida when a whole bunch of DEA agents crashed through the door." She went on to describe the mayhem they caused before getting out.

Funny. She got hustled out of there before I did.

rr

 

[P95Carry]

it was determined that I was a bit too interested in the constitution to make a good jury member

WOT!?? So - does this mean only constitutionally ignorant and apathetic people get selected for jury service???? Am I getting this right?? Please elaborate.

 

[TallPine]

does this mean only constitutionally ignorant and apathetic people get selected for jury service????

Yes, that is basically correct. The judge is there to tell you the law, and the more ignorant and apathetic you are, the better.

It's called "voire dire" which is french for "stacking the jury"

Same thing happened to me ... I questioned the federal law being used to prosecute, and was excused right away.

 

[Edward429451]

Sometimes I think I'm too critical of police and should ease up a little with my my cynicism...Then I go online or open a newspaper and read stuff like this and I wake up again. Isolated incidents indeed.

And if the guy who lives in the wrong house had personal knowledge that he was not a criminal, so assumed this must be a criminal assault on his house, had defended himself and shot one or more of the people breaking in...HE WOULD STILL BE TAGGED A BADGUY BECAUSE THE leo'S DON'T KNOW IF HE WAS OR NOT AND THEY ARE THE ONE'S THAT COUNT AND NOT A CITIZEN IN HIS PRIVATE DOMICILE.

In good faith, under orders, bad intel, whatever, is no excuse for these type of incidents. Sometimes I think they do this stuff on purpose to try & change the mindset of the people to total subjection.

 

[Desertdog]

And if the guy who lives in the wrong house had personal knowledge that he was not a criminal, so assumed this must be a criminal assault on his house, had defended himself and shot one or more of the people breaking in

This has been known to happen. In the incident I recall in the news, the guy was upstairs sleeping when they broke in. He met the cops at the top of the stairs witth his guns blazing. He lived to collect a very large settlement from the guilty agency/ies.

 

[Bill Hook]

Most folks don't want to be on juries, so anyone with half a brain can figure out how to get out of it, especially since they pay less than your lunch and parking will cost. Conversely, anyone who did want to get on the jury could feign ignorance.

 

[jimpeel]

A woman we know was called to jury duty. There were forty prospective jurors in the courtroom and she was in the jurybox sitting next to this guy.

They bring in the defendant and this guy next to her starts to squirm. He raises his hand and tells the judge "Your Honor, I have to get out of here!"

The judge, who will more carefully choose his words in the future, asks the guy "And just why, pray tell, do you have to leave?"

The guy points at the defendant and says "That man shot me!"

Turns out that this guy was convicted for shooting the guy in the past.

Forty jurors out the door. "Thank you ladies and gentlemen for your time."

 

[clubsoda22]

And if the guy who lives in the wrong house had personal knowledge that he was not a criminal, so assumed this must be a criminal assault on his house, had defended himself and shot one or more of the people breaking in...

I was thinking about that as i was reading the article. Say the four cops serve a no knock warrant on the wrong house. The person upstairs wakes up to his door being broken in and grabs the AR-15 out of his closet. He walkes out into the dark hallway and all he sees are a bunch of guys holding guns, wearing black balacava's charging up the stairs. He accordingly opens fire, the .223's zipping right through the vests killing or critically injuring every last one of them.

Way i look at it he was within his rights. Sucks for the cops.

Look at it this way:

Same scenario, guy opens fire and one of the cops shoots and kills him. Way i look at it they broke into his home and murdered him as he was defending himself. Can a criminal who breaks into your home and kills you claim self defence? Why can a cop serving an illegal search warrant?

I'm not talking about an oral reprimand. I'm talking criminal charges.

Now, I understand that charging the cop isn't reasonable. seriously, they should charge the one who initiated the raid, the one who gave the orders.

Wouldn't that be something if the officer who didn't do his job and let this happen got charged with breaking and entering and assault with a deadly weapon?

 

[TheeBadOne]

Where was the "criminal intent"?

 

[Thumper]

I'm not a cop basher, but I'm not a reflex cop apologist, either.

What SHOULD have happened to these officers, TheeBadOne?

 

[kbr80]

Criminal negligence. In my opinion, intent or no intent, a crime was committed.

 

[P95Carry]

TBO .... the intent is somewhat academic!! If the planned exploit is screwed up ... regardless of intent .. the action and results can IMO most surely be seen as criminal ... and not something that can be hidden or swept away by the position of ''law enforcement''.

If I have no intent to do someone harm but then in fact do just that ... my intent becomes totally irrelevant!!

 

[TheeBadOne]

P95 It depends on whether you're talking civil or criminal.

 

[P95Carry]

TBO ... many times I feel the dividing line between ''civil'' and ''criminal'' is very blurred ... maybe too a tad academic.

An officer of the law can ... even unwittingly IMO ... commit just as great a crime as the ''man in the street''...... and should not necessarily be able to ''hide behind his badge''. Maybe superiors are also to blaim and bear culpability.

Any ''unlawful'' .... even in hindsight - entry, that results in deaths on either side ... can be a crime ... but civil or criminal ...I don't think that has much bearing ultimately.

I'm not sure if this was what you had in mind re the distinction .. I am to bed soon ... so will check again tomorrow.