Police honored for firing at the wrong family

[Universe Prince]

Apparently Minneapolis police can do no wrong. After a raid into the wrong house on a December Sunday morning at 12:45, where in the father of the family fired at what he thought were robbers, and the wife had time to call 911 and report people breaking into the home before police identified themselves, an investigation was started to determine how the police could have made such a mistake. So, the residents of the house, including six children, are left dealing with bullet holes and the stress and trauma of the night, and meanwhile the police officers involved have been given medals and commendations.

http://wcco.com/iteam/swat.team.honored.2.783216.html
http://wcco.com/crime/minneapolis.police.raid.2.612926.html
http://wcco.com/iteam/i.team.police.2.651664.html
http://wcco.com/local/police.raid.house.2.613690.html

Granted, I am a distant outsider to this. But I can't help thinking giving the officers medals is perhaps not really appropriate.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Apparently, the police want to honor the officers because they did not actually plug any members of the family, because that would have been, as they say, a much worse disaster. The medals were awarded because the officers had correctly followed defective orders.

The egos of the officers apparently must be stroked so they will not suffer a breakdown of morale. Busting in on a perfectly innocent family of six and shooting at them could be really detrimental to the easily bruised self-esteem of the Swatsters.

On the other hand, they should have announced at the ceremony that it was definitely NOT rewarding anyone for poor marksmanship.

There is a delicate nuance to this affair. They didn't shoot to kill, but they were not poor marksmen.

I have always heard that you should not point a gun at anyone unless you intend to kill them. Perhaps that is not really a good universal law, after all. If it were, there would be fewer members of this family. On the other hand, they weren't white folks. Some definite nuances here.

I noticed that some of the SWAT team got awards with red ribbons and others got awards with green ribbons. This is July, so we can rule out Christmas, I believe. So this will just have to remain an unanswered question.

--------------------------------------------

I personally feel that awarding the Swatsters is a bit extreme here. They should have at least had them come over with some new windows, drywall compound and paint and fix the place up a bit before passing out the prizes.

I remember that a Good Boy Scout always leaves a place as good or better than he found it.
By this definition, these were not Good Boy Scouts, and therefore do not deserve special merit badges.

I am wondering if they will have a public demerit ceremony for the clown who sent them to the wrong address: pull the patches off his sleeves, take away his badge ad gun--that sort of thing.

I am guessing not. They probably won;t even tell the public who he was.
That's a morale thing, isn't it: He was punished enough already by just screwing up, wasn't he?

[kimba1]

the question should be how often do officers raid the wrong house.
how many of those mistake do the officers get rewarded?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079294/

[Plane]

Something like this happened to a neighbor of mine during a nasty divorce.

One day he was watching TV when the doors burst in and he was almost instantly surrounded and dragged onto his frount lawn , his house was very thouroughly searched and a half lid of MJ was found.

The Narc squad was veryu dissapointed they had expected to find a warehouse of wepons and drugs , as his ex had described.

Going to Rehab saved his job and improved his quality of life so it was not really a loss , but what an experience!

I heard a very simular story from another guy I don't know as well , makes me think that a SWAT team member might be able to tell of many misdirections.

[Michael Tee]

Probably happens all the time.  My late friend in Detroit owned a cleaning supplies company.  One night around 10:30 PM he had a meeting with three executives of an office cleaning company.  The three guys were black and my friend was white.  He met them in his outer office, then he turned out the lights in the outer office because all four of them were going into his inner office.  Somebody observed three black guys knocking at my friend's door, the door opening, the guys going in and the lights (in the outer office) going out.  That's all it took.  In less than 15 minutes the SWAT team broke down the outer door and charged into the offices with their guns drawn.  This would have to be about 20 - 25 years ago.

The cops respond to perceived emergencies.  They're damned if they do and they're damned if they don't.  Their critics have the benefit of hindsight, which of course is always 20-20.  We want 100% protection and we don't want abuses of police power.

I think in the circumstances, the cops showed a lot of restraint - - assuming that their not killing anybody was not simply due to poor marksmanship.  There are unanswered questions though - - did they identify themselves as police, and if so, how is it that the head of the household was shooting at them?  It always represents some kind of tragedy in waiting when average citizens have enough firepower to take on the cops, or trick-or-treaters or whoever the next victim of household gun ownership is going to be.  If that guy was shooting at clearly identified cops, with warrants, he needs to receive a very stern lesson.

[kimba1]

divorce is a funny thing
people talk about how sacred marraige is and how bad divorce.
but out of the very long list of the evils of divorce.
I never hear about the nasty fights between the couple as bad
ex. false drug charges

[Amianthus]

You're always going to see cases like this, especially if there is an anonymous reporting system in place. Inner city drug dealers use the police to attack other drug dealers, by reporting them anonymously.

[Michael Tee]

I think a lot of these abuses stem from the "war on drugs" which IMHO ought to be abandoned here and now.  It's my brain and if I want to treat it to some alternative perceptions of reality, that is nobody's business but mine.

[Universe Prince]

We want 100% protection and we don't want abuses of police power.

Speak for yourself. 100% protection is a completely unrealistic ideal. Besides which this isn't a case of protection. The police were not after violent criminals. There was very little if any protection involved in the goals of these police officers. And given that police are authorized to use deadly force, holding them to far higher standards to prevent abuses of police power is prudent and entirely reasonable if we the citizens expect any level of actual protection.

did they identify themselves as police, and if so, how is it that the head of the household was shooting at them?

Oh come on. Don't play naive. Someone shows up at your front door in the middle of the night when you and your family are sound asleep, announces himself at the door once, maybe twice. Remember, you're in your bedroom asleep. What wakes you up is the loud sound of your door being broken down. Do you automatically assume the loud sound is police,  get down on your knees and wait for boot on your neck; or do you wonder if that loud sound might be an intrusion by someone with intentions of illegal behavior?

It always represents some kind of tragedy in waiting when average citizens have enough firepower to take on the cops, or trick-or-treaters or whoever the next victim of household gun ownership is going to be.

As opposed to the tragedy of a person or family getting killed because they had no means to defend themselves against people with violent intentions/inclinations? The socialist answer seems to be yes, the citizens should be left weak and at the mercy of criminals and police alike. Hardly what I would call compassion for the well being of one's fellow humans.

[Michael Tee]

<<Oh come on. Don't play naive. Someone shows up at your front door in the middle of the night when you and your family are sound asleep, announces himself at the door once, maybe twice.>>

Well, that was the whole point of my question.  I don't automatically assume that they only yell "POLICE" once or twice BEFORE breaking down the door.  There's nothing to prevent them from yelling "POLICE" over and over again, wearing distinctive police gear instantly identifiable to anyone drawing a bead on them and showing a warrant or at least claiming one.  Some cops might be dumbass morons, but there must be at least one or two who will assume that their targets will be waking up from a deep sleep and not at their most analytical.

 <<Remember, you're in your bedroom asleep. What wakes you up is the loud sound of your door being broken down. Do you automatically assume the loud sound is police,  get down on your knees and wait for boot on your neck; or do you wonder if that loud sound might be an intrusion by someone with intentions of illegal behavior?>>

I would hope that the warrant would be issued only in the most exceptional circumstances and the issuing authorities would consider among other factors whether the area where the raid is to be conducted has had a  high number of recent armed home invasions.  I don't want to give the impression that I take home invasion lightly, even when it's by cops with a warrant.  I am assuming throughout that there is good reason for the raid and that the consequences of not raiding in that manner are serious and threatening to the community at large.

<<As opposed to the tragedy of a person or family getting killed because they had no means to defend themselves against people with violent intentions/inclinations? >>

That really doesn't seem to happen very much, I'm afraid.

<<The socialist answer seems to be yes, the citizens should be left weak and at the mercy of criminals and police alike. >>

Bullshit.  The criminals should be weak and at the mercy of the police and the citizens will be safe from them, particularly if they are all either executed or serving lengthy jail terms at hard labour.

<<Hardly what I would call compassion for the well being of one's fellow humans.>>

So when was it exactly that cops stopped being our fellow humans?

[Universe Prince]

http://abcnews.go.com/US/WireStory?id=5513699&page=1

Here's an interesting one. Apparently a police officer fired blindly into a bedroom and killed a mother holding her child. The officer heard what were shots outside fired by police to kill a pair of dogs, but the officer claims he mistook them for fire coming from the bedroom. So he fired immediately into the bedroom. And to no one's surprise, the police officer in question has been acquitted of any wrong doing. Had the situation been reversed, a citizen firing at what he thought were shots from someone intending him bodily harm and ending up killing a cop, the citizen would be in for a long stay in jail. This, I have to say, is not the way things should be. Police should be held to higher standards than citizens where force is used, not lower. I'm not saying cop killers should get off, but I am saying that there is no reason a police officer should not be punished for blindly firing into the room of a house.

[Michael Tee]

<<I am saying that there is no reason a police officer should not be punished for blindly firing into the room of a house.>>

Well, of course.  That's a very serious case of police brutality and the cop deserves to be locked up for a long, long time.  I am kinda wondering what the racial angle was here.  Injecting the race card into it.  Although from what plane and BT tell me, there couldn't possibly be a racial angle to any of this.   

[Universe Prince]

Well, that was the whole point of my question.  I don't automatically assume that they only yell "POLICE" once or twice BEFORE breaking down the door.  There's nothing to prevent them from yelling "POLICE" over and over again, wearing distinctive police gear instantly identifiable to anyone drawing a bead on them and showing a warrant or at least claiming one.  Some cops might be dumbass morons, but there must be at least one or two who will assume that their targets will be waking up from a deep sleep and not at their most analytical.

As it has been explained to me, the reason for late night SWAT raids is to cause disorientation because the assumption by the police is that whoever is inside is a violent person who will shoot back. And dark SWAT gear (never seen it in bright colors) in the dark is probably not instantly recognizable as police garb.

I would hope that the warrant would be issued only in the most exceptional circumstances

Generally not the case.

and the issuing authorities would consider among other factors whether the area where the raid is to be conducted has had a  high number of recent armed home invasions.

That assumes they think about the area at all. As best I can tell, not a safe assumption.

<<As opposed to the tragedy of a person or family getting killed because they had no means to defend themselves against people with violent intentions/inclinations? >>

That really doesn't seem to happen very much, I'm afraid.

Does it have to?

Bullshit.  The criminals should be weak and at the mercy of the police and the citizens will be safe from them, particularly if they are all either executed or serving lengthy jail terms at hard labour.

And people say I'm unrealistic?

<<Hardly what I would call compassion for the well being of one's fellow humans.>>

So when was it exactly that cops stopped being our fellow humans?

I didn't say they did. But leaving citizens at the mercy of those with force is not compassionate regardless of whether those with force are criminals or police. If police as human beings deserve the liberty to protect themselves, then so do other human beings.

[Michael Tee]

I would think that most political analysts, unless they're total anarchists, would have to agree that the state, be it left or right of centre, must enjoy a monopoly on violence.

If on balance the state abuses its monopoly more than the monopoly is worth, then it's time to overthrow the state and replace it with another one that doesn't.

[Xavier_Onassis]

I would think that most political analysts, unless they're total anarchists, would have to agree that the state, be it left or right of centre, must enjoy a monopoly on violence.

If on balance the state abuses its monopoly more than the monopoly is worth, then it's time to overthrow the state and replace it with another one that doesn't.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
It's difficult to argue with that.