[not_dead_yet]

Hey Anonymous Cop...

"Late Sept. 22nd/early A.M. Sept. 23rd: David and Teresa Hooks' home was burglarized. Among the items stolen was their SUV.

Sept. 23rd, 3:45 pm: After a brief investigation, the Laurens County Sheriff's Dept. issues an arrest warrant for suspect Rodney Garrett.

Sept. 24th, 3:45 pm: 24 hours later, Garrett is in police custody, turning himself in after becoming "fearful for his life" when he realized a bag he stole from the Hooks' home contained crystal meth. He confessed to the burglary, vehicle theft and "other crimes." (It must be noted that this version of events comes from the warrant application. Hooks' attorney's statement merely says Garrett was "taken into custody.")

Sept. 24th, 9:56 pm: Six hours, later the Laurens County "drug task force" has its warrant application for a search of Hooks' house signed by Judge Snell, based almost solely on the statements made by an admitted felon in their custody.

...

One hour later -- at 10:55 PM -- Hooks' home is raided and David Hooks is shot dead.

Here's the police version:

The Laurens County Sheriff's office says Hooks was shot after he got out a firearm and started showing aggression.

Here's his wife's version:

He says Teresa Hooks, David's wife, looked outside and saw people with hoods during the evening of the drug search. He says she woke her husband up, thinking the burglars were back. He says Hooks then armed himself.

How do we know all of this is bullshit? Because the police spent almost as much time searching Hooks' house -- nearly two days -- as it did between the point Hooks' house was invaded the first time (by confessed burglar Rodney Garrett) and the second time (by the SWAT team).

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/201410...m-to.shtml

[turkishcandy]

Let's not side with an armed drug-dealing scumbag just to get back at the police.

[Basil Ransom]

Turkishcandy, you failed to read the article properly.

[DarkTriad]

(10-08-2014 08:40 PM)Basil Ransom Wrote:  

Turkishcandy, you failed to read the article properly.

Sounds like he read it just fine. The police ALREADY knew the guy was meth dealer from a prior investigation. The new guy just confirmed it, and a judge signed off on the warrant based on the facts. The fact that the article calls a judge approved search warrant "another home invasion" shows the article isn't exactly unbiased either.

[perverted sage]

whatever happened too just putting him in a pair of handcuffs and taking him down to the station after reading him what i believe it's called miranda rights.

[Hedonistic Traveler]

(10-08-2014 08:55 PM)DarkTriad Wrote:  

(10-08-2014 08:40 PM)Basil Ransom Wrote:  

Turkishcandy, you failed to read the article properly.

Sounds like he read it just fine. The police ALREADY knew the guy was meth dealer from a prior investigation. The new guy just confirmed it, and a judge signed off on the warrant based on the facts. The fact that the article calls a judge approved search warrant "another home invasion" shows the article isn't exactly unbiased either.

They didn't know anything. Five years ago another suspect accused the guy of selling meth, but the investigation went nowhere. After searching the house for 44-hours they found nothing, so it seems like he still wasn't a meth dealer.

I can't believe the word of a drug addict looking for a deal can count towards a warrant, I guess they just give them out for anything these days. I wouldn't be surprised if the burglar got hit with a charge here, I doubt anything will happen to the police though. Although according to this article, the SWAT team went in without knocking despite not having a "no-knock" raid.

Really they shouldn't be giving "no-knock" warrants to anyone, except maybe in the case of kidnappings. If the guy has enough drugs to warrant the raid than he won't be flushing them in the time it takes to announce yourself. Of course than the police wouldn't be able to reenact their favorite Call of Duty game, but it'd probably be safe in the long run.

[DarkTriad]

(10-08-2014 09:12 PM)perverted sage Wrote:  

whatever happened too just putting him in a pair of handcuffs and taking him down to the station after reading him what i believe it's called miranda rights.

I think it had something to do with the gun and the way he was pointing it at them.

[perverted sage]

(10-08-2014 09:15 PM)DarkTriad Wrote:  

(10-08-2014 09:12 PM)perverted sage Wrote:  

whatever happened too just putting him in a pair of handcuffs and taking him down to the station after reading him what i believe it's called miranda rights.

I think it had something to do with the gun and the way he was pointing it at them.

You know this whole situation seems murky because what guy in their right mind in suburban america pulls a gun on a swat team unless their trying to kill him and furthermore don't you think if a swat team or hell normal armed police officers came to your doorstep after you've been robbed with an arrest warrant with your name on it you would cooperate. Yes, you would complain that this is bullshit but you would go to the station without too much resistance while telling your wife to hire an attorney.

This pattern of a swat team showing up and killing people is very concerning to me. I hope this doesn't repeat itself often

[turkishcandy]

(10-08-2014 09:14 PM)Hedonistic Traveler Wrote:  

(10-08-2014 08:55 PM)DarkTriad Wrote:  

(10-08-2014 08:40 PM)Basil Ransom Wrote:  

Turkishcandy, you failed to read the article properly.

Sounds like he read it just fine. The police ALREADY knew the guy was meth dealer from a prior investigation. The new guy just confirmed it, and a judge signed off on the warrant based on the facts. The fact that the article calls a judge approved search warrant "another home invasion" shows the article isn't exactly unbiased either.

They didn't know anything. Five years ago another suspect accused the guy of selling meth, but the investigation went nowhere. After searching the house for 44-hours they found nothing, so it seems like he still wasn't a meth dealer.

I can't believe the word of a drug addict looking for a deal can count towards a warrant, I guess they just give them out for anything these days. I wouldn't be surprised if the burglar got hit with a charge here, I doubt anything will happen to the police though. Although according to this article, the SWAT team went in without knocking despite not having a "no-knock" raid.

Really they shouldn't be giving "no-knock" warrants to anyone, except maybe in the case of kidnappings. If the guy has enough drugs to warrant the raid than he won't be flushing them in the time it takes to announce yourself. Of course than the police wouldn't be able to reenact their favorite Call of Duty game, but it'd probably be safe in the long run.

If you want to believe there is an evidence-planting action-hungry G.I.Joe cop behind every corner, go ahead. I believe the majority of these guys are just honest men trying to do their job and protect your society. And this is the SWAT team we are talking about, not a couple of patrol cops. To say that they just wanna storm in and kill everything that moves because they played too much Call of Duty is just irrational. But I guess you are in a better position to call what kind of engagement rules SWAT team is supposed to have.

We don't know anything about this case, the whole article is vague, one-sided and suggesting conspiracy. All we know is that there was a shoot-out between the SWAT team and a drug dealer, and you immediately assume that the cops didn't do things by the book and they should be prosecuted.

[weambulance]

You guys are making some assumptions that are by no means given. A common thread in these sorts of no-knock raid killings is the survivors claim they didn't know it was cops breaking in. You think a SWAT team is going to wait more than a split second before breaching the door after they identify themselves? And even if some clown at the door did yell it was the police, that doesn't necessarily make it true. Criminals can't say "it's the police" to get you to open the door and let them in? The guy was just robbed. For all he knows the guy that robbed him was a gangbanger who brought his buddies back to clean him out.

I obviously have no idea how accurate the article is. What I do know is SWAT tactics like these are fucking retarded and certainly not geared toward saving lives, or preventing violent confrontation. These clowns want action, they want the high of combat while sleeping in their own bed at night. Every single instance I read of where someone is killed in a no-knock raid could've easily been handled in a more intelligent manner with significantly less danger to the police and suspect, if that's what the police wanted. But that's not what they want, and as long as we have a police force A) armed like they're about to invade Syria and B) which views the population at large as an enemy we will continue to have these problems.

[Duke Castile]

(10-08-2014 10:06 PM)turkishcandy Wrote:  

(10-08-2014 09:14 PM)Hedonistic Traveler Wrote:  

(10-08-2014 08:55 PM)DarkTriad Wrote:  

(10-08-2014 08:40 PM)Basil Ransom Wrote:  

Turkishcandy, you failed to read the article properly.

Sounds like he read it just fine. The police ALREADY knew the guy was meth dealer from a prior investigation. The new guy just confirmed it, and a judge signed off on the warrant based on the facts. The fact that the article calls a judge approved search warrant "another home invasion" shows the article isn't exactly unbiased either.

They didn't know anything. Five years ago another suspect accused the guy of selling meth, but the investigation went nowhere. After searching the house for 44-hours they found nothing, so it seems like he still wasn't a meth dealer.

I can't believe the word of a drug addict looking for a deal can count towards a warrant, I guess they just give them out for anything these days. I wouldn't be surprised if the burglar got hit with a charge here, I doubt anything will happen to the police though. Although according to this article, the SWAT team went in without knocking despite not having a "no-knock" raid.

Really they shouldn't be giving "no-knock" warrants to anyone, except maybe in the case of kidnappings. If the guy has enough drugs to warrant the raid than he won't be flushing them in the time it takes to announce yourself. Of course than the police wouldn't be able to reenact their favorite Call of Duty game, but it'd probably be safe in the long run.

If you want to believe there is an evidence-planting action-hungry G.I.Joe cop behind every corner, go ahead. I believe the majority of these guys are just honest men trying to do their job and protect your society. And this is the SWAT team we are talking about, not a couple of patrol cops. To say that they just wanna storm in and kill everything that moves because they played too much Call of Duty is just irrational. But I guess you are in a better position to call what kind of engagement rules SWAT team is supposed to have.

We don't know anything about this case, the whole article is vague, one-sided and suggesting conspiracy. All we know is that there was a shoot-out between the SWAT team and a drug dealer, and you immediately assume that the cops didn't do things by the book and they should be prosecuted.

I used to think cops where mostly honest too. Until I became friends with one that was a 2 time medal of valor winner on the LAPD.

[Cattle Rustler]

So can anyone tell me what actually happened?

There's 2 stories going on at the same time

[Ziltoid]

(10-08-2014 10:06 PM)turkishcandy Wrote:  

(10-08-2014 09:14 PM)Hedonistic Traveler Wrote:  

(10-08-2014 08:55 PM)DarkTriad Wrote:  

(10-08-2014 08:40 PM)Basil Ransom Wrote:  

Turkishcandy, you failed to read the article properly.

Sounds like he read it just fine. The police ALREADY knew the guy was meth dealer from a prior investigation. The new guy just confirmed it, and a judge signed off on the warrant based on the facts. The fact that the article calls a judge approved search warrant "another home invasion" shows the article isn't exactly unbiased either.

They didn't know anything. Five years ago another suspect accused the guy of selling meth, but the investigation went nowhere. After searching the house for 44-hours they found nothing, so it seems like he still wasn't a meth dealer.

I can't believe the word of a drug addict looking for a deal can count towards a warrant, I guess they just give them out for anything these days. I wouldn't be surprised if the burglar got hit with a charge here, I doubt anything will happen to the police though. Although according to this article, the SWAT team went in without knocking despite not having a "no-knock" raid.

Really they shouldn't be giving "no-knock" warrants to anyone, except maybe in the case of kidnappings. If the guy has enough drugs to warrant the raid than he won't be flushing them in the time it takes to announce yourself. Of course than the police wouldn't be able to reenact their favorite Call of Duty game, but it'd probably be safe in the long run.

If you want to believe there is an evidence-planting action-hungry G.I.Joe cop behind every corner, go ahead. I believe the majority of these guys are just honest men trying to do their job and protect your society. And this is the SWAT team we are talking about, not a couple of patrol cops. To say that they just wanna storm in and kill everything that moves because they played too much Call of Duty is just irrational. But I guess you are in a better position to call what kind of engagement rules SWAT team is supposed to have.

We don't know anything about this case, the whole article is vague, one-sided and suggesting conspiracy. All we know is that there was a shoot-out between the SWAT team and a drug dealer, and you immediately assume that the cops didn't do things by the book and they should be prosecuted.

So we don't know anything about the case, but we know that the guy was a drug dealer and that he shot at the Police?
Holy shit.



We get it, you have a hard on for law enforcement, good for you.
I'm sure your PBA/FOP cards and your one friend who is a cop will come in handy if you're ever on the receiving end of an unjust raid like this.

[Beyond Borders]

(10-08-2014 10:08 PM)weambulance Wrote:  

What I do know is SWAT tactics like these are fucking retarded and certainly not geared toward saving lives, or preventing violent confrontation. These clowns want action, they want the high of combat while sleeping in their own bed at night. Every single instance I read of where someone is killed in a no-knock raid could've easily been handled in a more intelligent manner with significantly less danger to the police and suspect, if that's what the police wanted. But that's not what they want, and as long as we have a police force A) armed like they're about to invade Syria and B) which views the population at large as an enemy we will continue to have these problems.

Case closed.

[Foolsgo1d]

Not to put my tin foil hat on but if crime figures fell below a certain point and someone wanted to boost the numbers of criminals being busted, could the police just hire desperate people to break into a specific house and confirm whether or not illegal activity is going on?

Doesn't seem legal at all.

[TheWastelander]

We should just have a police megathread since these things pop up pretty often.

Here's a clear-cut case of police wrongdoing:

http://reason.com/blog/2014/10/09/warran...people-cos

Quote:

On January 27, 2009, Denver cops pounded on the door of a home that used to be a drug den and brothel. Not having kept their information current, the cops didn't know the house was now occupied by Daniel Martinez Jr. (pictured) and his family. They also "had no warrant, no application for a warrant, nothing," as the family's attorney later described the scene. The officers rushed inside and roughed up the residents, including shoving a 16-year-old boy's head through a window and and dealing out a generous dollop of beatings and bodyslamming.

Then they realized they'd fucked up. So they trumped up charges against the family.

Fortunately, a jury saw through the cops' bullshit and found Nathan Martinez and Daniel Martinez III not guilty of misdemeanor assault charges. Subsequently, the district attorney saw the light and abandoned the case against Daniel Martinez Jr. and Jonathan Martinez.

Now the Martinez family is getting some payback after suing the cops and their employers.

From Kirk Mitchell at The Denver Post:

A Denver jury on Friday awarded $1.8 million to a family after a wrongful prosecution case in which police officers executed a warrantless raid on a home previously occupied by drug dealers and prostitutes.

The lawsuit was filed in 2011 against the city and county of Denver and four police officers. Claims against the city later were dropped in a summary judgment.

A jury of 10 awarded various amounts to the four family members based on different amounts of damages attributed to the four officers. The jury awarded a total of $1.25 million of punitive damages collectively to the family.

This Denver Post article goes into even more detail:

Quote:

In planning for the raid, officers had failed to check calls for service to the home, and if they had, they would have learned that officers had twice gone to the home on calls, including the same morning of the raid, and reported the Martinez family was then occupying the home, the lawsuit said.

The officers never discussed getting a warrant or even whether they should. At 11:10 p.m., a sergeant and four police officers approached the home through a gate with a large sign that said "Martinez family."

Sgt. Robert Motyka "was able to see inside the home, yet failed to alert any of his fellow officers that the home contained not prostitutes and drug dealers, but a family watching television."

Denver police Officer Jason Valdez, who later acknowledged seeing but disregarding the sign, pounded on the front door and yelled "Open the damn door right now!" the lawsuit says. When Daniel Martinez opened the door a crack, three Denver police officers rushed into the home without invitation.

Two feet inside the home, Valdez grabbed 16-year-old Jonathon Martinez and shoved his head through a window next to the front door, the lawsuit says.

"Valdez then dragged the diminutive teenager outside, heaved him onto the sidewalk, shoved his knee into Jonathan's back, handcuffed him and, finally, flipped him over and punched him in the stomach," according to the lawsuit, which says none of the family resisted arrest.

[TheWastelander]

Oops. Double posted.

[Basil Ransom]

Behold the iron law of bureaucracy in action:
Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy states that in any bureaucratic organization there will be two kinds of people":

First, there will be those who are devoted to the goals of the organization. Examples are dedicated classroom teachers in an educational bureaucracy, many of the engineers and launch technicians and scientists at NASA, even some agricultural scientists and advisors in the former Soviet Union collective farming administration.

Secondly, there will be those dedicated to the organization itself. Examples are many of the administrators in the education system, many professors of education, many teachers union officials, much of the NASA headquarters staff, etc.

The Iron Law states that in every case the second group will gain and keep control of the organization. It will write the rules, and control promotions within the organization.

By Jerry Pournelle.

Except with the cops, the iron law of bureaucracy has ruinous, fatal repercussions.

[monster]

(10-08-2014 11:44 PM)Fisto Wrote:  

I used to think cops where mostly honest too. Until I became friends with one that was a 2 time medal of valor winner on the LAPD.

What do you mean?