United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Colorado Drug Warriors Mistakenly Storm Innocent Family's Home
Source:
Reason
URL Source: https://reason.com/blog/2016/09/19/ ... drug-warriors-mistakenly-storm
Published: Sep 19, 2016
Author: Jacob Sullum
Post Date: 2016-09-19 10:28:14 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 6861
Comments: 32
A SWAT team breaks into a home early in the morning based on an informant's tip, expecting to find an armed methamphetamine dealer. Instead they encounter an innocent family with several young children. Those were the circumstances in which police in Habersham County, Georgia, nearly killed a toddler with an errant flashbang grenade in 2014, leading to a lawsuit that was eventually settled for $3.6 million. Something similar happened last week in Mesa County, Colorado. This time no one was injured or killed, although things easily could have turned out differently. Around 11:30 p.m. last Tuesday night, the Western Colorado Drug Task Force, which includes representatives from the Mesa County Sheriff's Office (MCSO) and the Grand Junction Police Department (GJPD), received a tip from an informant who claimed cops would find a stash of methamphetamine and guns at an apartment in the Coronado Villas complex in Clifton. The tip apparently was the sole basis for the warrant that 15 to 20 officers served around 5:30 a.m. the next morning. "Upon initial contact at the residence," the MCSO and GJPDO say in a press release, "officers received no answer at the door." That's hardly surprising, given the early hour. Cops routinely conduct drug raids when people are sleeping, the better to discombobulate their targets, and then use the residents' failure to promptly answer the door as an excuse to break it down, which only magnifies the chances of a violent encounter. "As is standard protocol when probable cause has been developed that illegal or dangerous activity is occurring, and armed with the signed search warrant, officers forced entry into the home, using a breaching tool," the press release says. "During entry into the residence, several windows of the home were broken." Fortunately, the cops did not toss any flashbangs while entering the house, but they terrified the occupants, who included five children ranging in age from 3 to 12. "Ultimately," the cops say, "officers contacted the residents inside the address, and determined that they were not the suspects that officers were looking for." The phrase "contacted the residents" is an anodyne description of a much scarier reality. "Waking up to guns in my face, I consider that the beginning," the father of the family, Sean Armas, told KJCT, the ABC station in Grand Junction. "That's how it was, all my kids had guns on them. It was out of line....It's a dangerous situation they put my family in, and for my kids, it just keeps playing through their minds." The police say "further investigation determined that the suspects named by the original reporting party had lived at the address at one time, but had since moved away from the address, which was now occupied by a family with several children." The press release is notably vague on the timing of the change in occupancy, but The Daily Sentinel, a newspaper in Grand Junction, reports that "the family told law enforcement they had been living at the home since October." In other words, the informant's tip was at least a year out of date, assuming that it was not invented out of whole cloth. Apparently police did not think to ask the informant when she had supposedly seen the drugs and guns she reported. And although the police say "surveillance was conducted on the home" between the tip and the raid six hours later, it apparently did not involve figuring out who actually lived in the house cops were about to invade. A neighbor interviewed by KJCT noted that the Armas family has "a little kid's playhouse right in front of their yard," along with various other toys, which you might think would have tipped off the police to the presence of children. "We are deeply regretful of the experience to which this family was subjected," the MCSO and GJPD say. "We have met with the family, including the children, to explain in detail how such a mistake was made....The most important thing law enforcement can do after an incident like this is carefully evaluate what happened, and determine how we can prevent such a mistake from happening again. We will be doing just that." In an interview with The Denver Post, GJPD spokeswoman Heidi Davidson admitted police were too eager to storm the house. "It should have been vetted better," she said. "We should have done a better job from the beginning." Lewis told The Daily Sentinel "it is still troubling to us as law enforcement leaders that we had this happen, and we potentially exposed our people and this family to a dangerous situation, and it could have had a tragic outcome." The press release is contrite. "We are so grateful that no one was hurt, and we want to publicly apologize to the family, and acknowledge what a frightening and disconcerting experience this must have been for them," it says. "We are currently in the process of replacing the windows that were broken, repairing the front door, and arranging for new carpet to be installed, as we are concerned about possible glass in the existing carpet." The Daily Sentinel reports that Mesa County Sheriff Matt Lewis "said the family was receptive to the apology and forgiving." Sean Armas did not sound very forgiving in his interview with KJCT. "How dare they come in my house like I was a felon?" he said. "My civil rights were violated." KJCT reports that Armas is "frustrated the police didn't investigate the tip further because he's confident if they had the entry never would have happened." It is worth reiterating a point made by the grand jury that faulted the "hurried" and "sloppy" investigation preceding the Georgia raid. "There should be no such thing as an 'emergency' in drug investigations," it said. "no amount of drugs is worth a member of the public being harmed, even if unintentionally, or a law enforcement officer being harmed....Going into a home with the highest level of entry should be reserved for those cases where it is absolutely necessary....Neither the public nor law enforcement officers should be in this dangerous split second situation unless it is absolutely necessary for the protection of the public." The basic problem here is that the government insists on using violence when it is not morally justified: in response to peaceful, consensual transactions between adults. But even taking the war on drugs as a given, a little more restraint would go a long way. The false sense of urgency that leads to raids like this one, where the cops felt they had to act so quickly that there was no time for a proper investigation, must be countered by a constant awareness of how a raid can go horribly wrong. The common practice of serving drug warrants by crashing into people's homes in the middle of the night is supposedly aimed at preventing violence, but it makes potentially fatal mistakes more likely, even when the information on which the raid is based turns out to be accurate. Cops are easily mistaken for burglars, and residents defending their homes (or even just blearily descending the stairs with an unidentified object in their hands) are easily mistaken for would-be cop killers. Children are horribly burned by explosive devices designed to confuse the enemy. Fortunately, no one was injured or killed in this case, but it has happened before, and it is bound to happen again. The cops were looking for a meth dealer who had not lived there for at least a year.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Deckard (#0)
Ah. The core of Libertarianism: Consesual activities. Buying, selling, and using drugs, for sure. Gambling and prostitution, of course. Buying and selling all manner of arms. Buying and selling parts of a fetus. Buying and selling human organs. Human trafficking. Buying and selling stolen merchandise. The list goes on. And in Bizarro World, it's "not morally justified" to ban these immoral activities.
Gee, no shit sherlock. They should have just arrested the target outside, down the street, athis place of employment, or where ever, and the raid at the house would have been unnecessary. Afterwards, they could have used the warrant to do a search and collect any evidence. Oh, but that would have not allowed them to play "Johnny Bad Ass". and use all of their cool toys. TS. Also, they should have had their shit together on their acquired intel, BEFORE the raid. I think a bunch of these clowns need to take some basic land navigation classes, so they go to the correct house. I guess they did not pick that up when they were crossing guards. Si vis pacem, para bellum Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God. if you look around, we have gone so far down the the rat hole, the almighty is going to have to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah, if we don't have a judgement come down on us. President Obama is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people. --Clint Eastwood "I am concerned for the security of our great nation; not so much because of any threat from without, but because of the insidious forces working from within." -- General Douglas MacArthur
"This afternoom, police attempted to arrest a known, armed drug dealer on the street (at his place of employment, whatever). The suspect pulled out an Uzi and fired, injuring four policemen and killing three bystanders." "The following day, a poster named Stoner questioned the actions of police, criticizing their decision to apprehend the suspect in public, and saying that they should have simply conducted an early-morning raid on his residence, catching him off-guard and not endangerig innocents."
"The following day, a poster named Stoner questioned the actions of police, criticizing their decision to apprehend the suspect in public, and saying that they should have simply conducted an early-morning raid on his residence, catching him off-guard and not endangerig innocents." misterwhite, I have to assume you are alleging that was me, correct? If, then please provide a link to the post. Otherwise, you have sunk to a new low, and are simply fabricating a falsehood. I will await your response WITH the link. Si vis pacem, para bellum Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God. if you look around, we have gone so far down the the rat hole, the almighty is going to have to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah, if we don't have a judgement come down on us. President Obama is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people. --Clint Eastwood "I am concerned for the security of our great nation; not so much because of any threat from without, but because of the insidious forces working from within." -- General Douglas MacArthur
Yes, it was you in a fictional scenario. Had this actually happened, it was my opinion as to how you would have responded, since nothing the cops do is right in your eyes.
Buying, selling, and using drugs, for sure. Gambling and prostitution, of course. Buying and selling all manner of arms. Buying and selling parts of a fetus. Buying and selling human organs. Human trafficking. Buying and selling stolen merchandise. The list goes on. And, it's "not morally justified" to ban these immoral activities. In misterwhite's bizarro 'moral' world, anything he imagines to be immoral, MUST BE....
Hippie drug addicts. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Correct. Wrong - the fetus did not consent. Correct, with the consent of the original owner. How can it be OK to donate them but not to sell them? Wrong under the standard meaning of that term, in which the trafficked do not consent. Wrong yet again - those from whom it was stolen did not consent. Government's proper role is the defense of individual rights, not the suppression of non-rights-violating immorality. "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will, within the limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’; because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual." - Thomas Jefferson A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Well, I am glad that you at least admitted that I was right in the first place that you fabricated a falsehood. Your opinion is worth less than the turds I flushed this morning. As to your opinion that " nothing the cops do is right in your eyes. " again you are FOS. I will always praise them when they do good, but unlike you, I will point out when they are wrong, like in this case. I treat them the same way I did my kids when they were growing up, I praised them when they did good, and I pointed out to them when they were wrong. & My kids did not grow up to be spoiled brats, they are adults now, and they know right from wrong. Cops that are not disciplined, will turn into tyrants. I have known a lot of very good Officers, and still do, both SO's, local PD's, State Police, and a few Feds. I also have known a few that were not very good, fortunately most of the duds either quit, or were fired. You can continue to kiss boots, and maybe one day they will let you sit in a cruiser, and maybe even let you turn on the blue lights, and turn on the siren for a minute. Otherwise, you can just wash & wax them, and hope to move up to be a crossing guard. Your problem is you worship being a cop so much, that you have lost the intelect to discern right from wrong. You are waaaaay too much of a wanna be. Hopefully you will grow up someday. Si vis pacem, para bellum Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God. if you look around, we have gone so far down the the rat hole, the almighty is going to have to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah, if we don't have a judgement come down on us. President Obama is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people. --Clint Eastwood "I am concerned for the security of our great nation; not so much because of any threat from without, but because of the insidious forces working from within." -- General Douglas MacArthur
Making shit up again? "In United States constitutional law, police power is the capacity of the states to regulate behavior and enforce order within their territory for the betterment of the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of their inhabitants."
Had they arrested him in the street and innocents were killed, I find it very hard to believe you would have accepted that as a better alternative to a pre- dawn raid confined to his house. But, since that's your story and you're sticking to it, so be it.
But the buyer and seller (say, a pawn shop) didn't know the goods were stolen. Why should they be punished? That's asset forfeiture redux. "Wrong - the fetus did not consent. " The mother did.
But, since that's your story and you're sticking to it, so be it. " AGAIN, you want to engage in a fantasy hypothetical. In the first place, your heroes went to the wrong house. THEY WERE WRONG. Maybe they could get some local Cub Scouts to give them some basic land navigation classes. If they had not gone to the wrong house, there would not have been a problem to begin with. Secondly, if they would have grabbed the perp on the street, you do not know that, in your example, would have pulled out an Uzi. He most likely, if they had done it right, they could have taken him down quickly, without issue. My main point was that they could have arrested him without issue, and an innocent family would not have been accosted. But to you, and your heroes, it obviously is more important for them to play "Barney Bad Ass", and if they go to the wrong house, and terrorize an innocent family, and possibly shoot innocent citizens, then Tuff Shit, your heroes CAN DO NO WRONG, and MUST SHOW EVERYONE HOW BAD ASS THEY ARE, & STOKE THEIR EGO'S. And if they fuck up, who cares? The taxpayers will pay the bill! You better stick to washing & waxing cruisers, and play cops & robbers in your fantasy world. You are not smart enough to be a real cop! Si vis pacem, para bellum Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God. if you look around, we have gone so far down the the rat hole, the almighty is going to have to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah, if we don't have a judgement come down on us. President Obama is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people. --Clint Eastwood "I am concerned for the security of our great nation; not so much because of any threat from without, but because of the insidious forces working from within." -- General Douglas MacArthur
Jefferson trumps Britannica, and you lose again.
A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Doubtful. The original owner has the right to his property; genuinely unknowing purchasers have a cause of action against the thieves. That's real libertarianism, not your fabricated bullshit. She doesn't own the fetus. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Jefferson was correct, but only gave one reason why governments are formed.
Strawman. My argument was that the buyer and seller had nothing to do with the original crime. They didn't even know a crime had been committed. Yet you want to punish them. Next thing you know you'll be arresting drunk drivers for something they haven't done either.
If the mother can donate fetal tissue for research today, then she can certainly sell it as a peaceful, consensual transaction between adults.
Wrong. "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will, within the limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’; because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual." A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Strawman. My argument was that the buyer and seller had nothing to do with the original crime. They didn't even know a crime had been committed. Yet you want to punish them. I want to restore the stolen property to the original owner; as I posted and you omitted, genuinely unknowing purchasers have a cause of action against the thieves. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Also a violation of the fetus' rights. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Cite, please.
You want? Who's "you"? If the owner wants his property back, he can negotiate with the new owner. As for the thief, that's not our problem, is it? The orginal owner can hire a private firm to track him down. You're not expecting us to pay for the careless behavior of the original owner, are you? "as I posted and you omitted, genuinely unknowing purchasers have a cause of action against the thieves." You mean against the government thieves who took the purchasers' property? You have a very selective view of asset forfeiture, don't you? Some might call it hypocritical.
There is no "new owner" - only a faux owner who got scammed and needs to take it up with the scammer(s) (in which he certainly deserves the law's support). A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Cite, please. "41 Quotes From Medical Textbooks Prove Human Life Begins at Conception" - www.lifenews.com/2015/01/...ife-begins-at-conception/ A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. "Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities." Don't make it true and don't make it the law.
Sure there is. He paid money for that item and has a receipt. Then along comes the government who informs him (without proof) that the item was stolen and he must forfeit it without compensation.
"Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities." Don't make it true I'll just let that speak for itself. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Sure there is. He paid money for that item and has a receipt. Doesn't make him an owner if the property wasn't the seller's to sell. More book-cooking as you pull a "without proof" clause out of your ass. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Where's the proof the original owner obtained the merchandise legally? Where's the proof it was stolen and not lost or sold? Where's the thief who admits he stole it? Where's the proof the (pawn shop) and the new buyer knew it was stolen? You're making a plethora of assumptions and only get picky when it comes to the new owner.
You are one silly bastard. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. "The basic problem here is that the government insists on using violence when it is not morally justified: in response to peaceful, consensual transactions between adults."
#2. To: Deckard (#0)
" spokeswoman Heidi Davidson admitted police were too eager to storm the house. "It should have been vetted better," she said. "We should have done a better job from the beginning." Lewis told The Daily Sentinel "it is still troubling to us as law enforcement leaders that we had this happen, and we potentially exposed our people and this family to a dangerous situation, and it could have had a tragic outcome." "
#3. To: Stoner (#2)
"They should have just arrested the target outside, down the street, athis place of employment, or where ever, and the raid at the house would have been unnecessary."
#4. To: misterwhite (#3)
" "This afternoom, police attempted to arrest a known, armed drug dealer on the street (at his place of employment, whatever). The suspect pulled out an Uzi and fired, injuring four policemen and killing three bystanders."
#5. To: Stoner (#4)
"misterwhite, I have to assume you are alleging that was me, correct? If, then please provide a link to the post."
#6. To: misterwhite admits that buying and selling all manner of arms ---- is immoral... TO HIM (#1)
Ah. The core of Libertarianism: Consesual activities.
#7. To: Deckard (#0)
It is worth reiterating a point made by the grand jury that faulted the "hurried" and "sloppy" investigation preceding the Georgia raid. "There should be no such thing as an 'emergency' in drug investigations," it said. "no amount of drugs is worth a member of the public being harmed, even if unintentionally, or a law enforcement officer being harmed....Going into a home with the highest level of entry should be reserved for those cases where it is absolutely necessary....Neither the public nor law enforcement officers should be in this dangerous split second situation unless it is absolutely necessary for the protection of the public."
#8. To: misterwhite (#1)
Buying, selling, and using drugs, for sure. Gambling and prostitution, of course. Buying and selling all manner of arms.
Buying and selling parts of a fetus.
Buying and selling human organs.
Human trafficking.
Buying and selling stolen merchandise.
And in Bizarro World, it's "not morally justified" to ban these immoral activities.
#9. To: misterwhite (#5)
" Yes, it was you in a fictional scenario. Had this actually happened, it was my opinion as to how you would have responded, since nothing the cops do is right in your eyes. "
#10. To: ConservingFreedom (#8)
"Government's proper role is the defense of individual rights, not the suppression of non-rights-violating immorality."
#11. To: Stoner (#9)
"I will always praise them when they do good, but unlike you, I will point out when they are wrong, like in this case."
#12. To: ConservingFreedom (#8)
"Wrong yet again - those from whom it was stolen did not consent."
#13. To: misterwhite (#11)
" Had they arrested him in the street and innocents were killed, I find it very hard to believe you would have accepted that as a better alternative to a pre- dawn raid confined to his house.
#14. To: Stoner (#13)
Weeeeeee! Amen!
#15. To: misterwhite (#10)
#16. To: misterwhite (#12)
But the buyer and seller (say, a pawn shop) didn't know the goods were stolen.
Why should they be punished? That's asset forfeiture redux.
The mother did.
#17. To: ConservingFreedom (#15)
"Jefferson trumps Britannica, and you lose again."
#18. To: ConservingFreedom (#16)
"The original owner has the right to his property"
#19. To: ConservingFreedom (#16)
"She doesn't own the fetus."
#20. To: misterwhite (#17)
Jefferson was correct, but only gave one reason why governments are formed.
#21. To: misterwhite (#18)
"The original owner has the right to his property"
#22. To: misterwhite (#19)
If the mother can donate fetal tissue for research today
#23. To: ConservingFreedom (#22)
"Also a violation of the fetus' rights."
#24. To: ConservingFreedom (#21)
"I want to restore the stolen property to the original owner"
#25. To: misterwhite (#24)
If the owner wants his property back, he can negotiate with the new owner.
#26. To: misterwhite (#23)
"Also a violation of the fetus' rights."
#27. To: ConservingFreedom (#26)
"41 Quotes From Medical Textbooks Prove Human Life Begins at Conception"
#28. To: ConservingFreedom (#25)
"There is no "new owner"
#29. To: misterwhite (#27)
"41 Quotes From Medical Textbooks Prove Human Life Begins at Conception"
#30. To: misterwhite (#28)
'There is no "new owner" - only a faux owner who got scammed and needs to take it up with the scammer(s) (in which he certainly deserves the law's support).'
Then along comes the government who informs him (without proof) that the item was stolen
#31. To: ConservingFreedom (#30)
"More book-cooking as you pull a "without proof" clause out of your ass."
#32. To: misterwhite (#31)
Where's the proof the original owner obtained the merchandise legally?
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]