TexasCHLforum.com

gigag04 wrote:

EEllis wrote:

mamabearCali wrote:What I don't get is why, in the name of all that is holy, if firearms and drugs are known to be present and are such a threat to officers lives that they have to engage in combat tactics with potential children in the home, don't they wait for the guy to be leaving 7-11 and take him there then get a warrant for the house and show up and get the evidence no drama needed.


If I can think of that, why can't they?

Like I have said before we all think we are so sofistcated in our police and criminal justice system, but in much more brutal times those who enforced the law were severely punished if they burned innocents along with the guilty.

Because there are never any kids at 7-11? You might be right that it is a better choice to try and apprehend someone outside a home but you have more variables that could occur outside than in a home. Assuming that it would provide better results without having access to more data is wishful thinking. What is really needed is real research into the issue and fact based decision making.

But the children...


In all seriousness, I preferred car takedowns as it was easier to get the tactical advantage (tahoe, K9, and two patrol units). IMHO a high risk stop is more tactically sound and usually safer in cases of wrong house/car.

Seems you know your stuff. Several dangerous criminals have been arrested in car take downs. First one that comes to mind is Dennis Rader (BTK) It was smooth & uneventful.

Just another atrocity committed by a "multijurisdictional drug unit" which means the feds may have been involved in this "cool training event" that maimed an innocent American. Americans need to start electing Sheriffs that will not allow these things to take place. I don't see any other peaceful recourse. Fire the Sheriff and get a new one.

EEllis wrote:

mamabearCali wrote:What I don't get is why, in the name of all that is holy, if firearms and drugs are known to be present and are such a threat to officers lives that they have to engage in combat tactics with potential children in the home, don't they wait for the guy to be leaving 7-11 and take him there then get a warrant for the house and show up and get the evidence no drama needed.


If I can think of that, why can't they?

Like I have said before we all think we are so sofistcated in our police and criminal justice system, but in much more brutal times those who enforced the law were severely punished if they burned innocents along with the guilty.

Because there are never any kids at 7-11? You might be right that it is a better choice to try and apprehend someone outside a home but you have more variables that could occur outside than in a home. Assuming that it would provide better results without having access to more data is wishful thinking. What is really needed is real research into the issue and fact based decision making.

A little watchfulness a little creative thought on the part of law enforcement and many of these horrific situations can be easily avoided. Take him down as he walks from his house to the car. Take him down as he is driving on the highway and you can see he is alone. Do as was suggested and arrange a meeting at a place you can control the environment. Raids in the middle of the night where there are known innocents just because that is the listed address of the person are lazy and poor police work much of the time.

That is not wishful thinking that is using ones head to make a safer arrest that won't put innocents in harms way.

EEllis wrote:

mamabearCali wrote:What I don't get is why, in the name of all that is holy, if firearms and drugs are known to be present and are such a threat to officers lives that they have to engage in combat tactics with potential children in the home, don't they wait for the guy to be leaving 7-11 and take him there then get a warrant for the house and show up and get the evidence no drama needed.


If I can think of that, why can't they?

Like I have said before we all think we are so sofistcated in our police and criminal justice system, but in much more brutal times those who enforced the law were severely punished if they burned innocents along with the guilty.

Because there are never any kids at 7-11? You might be right that it is a better choice to try and apprehend someone outside a home but you have more variables that could occur outside than in a home. Assuming that it would provide better results without having access to more data is wishful thinking. What is really needed is real research into the issue and fact based decision making.

Sometimes common sense is all that's needed. They did a great job of managing the "variables" in this case didn't they? All for some dope. I guess a certain amount of collateral damage can be expected in war? The kid was in the wrong place at the wrong time and should do a better job of deciding with whom to hang. Got what he had coming, huh?

The cops got a big adrenaline rush and a huge stash of drugs off the streets or did they?

dailymail.co.uk huh. This is the kind of thing that gives America a "wild west" reputation with the Yurpeans.

mojo84 wrote:

EEllis wrote:

mamabearCali wrote:What I don't get is why, in the name of all that is holy, if firearms and drugs are known to be present and are such a threat to officers lives that they have to engage in combat tactics with potential children in the home, don't they wait for the guy to be leaving 7-11 and take him there then get a warrant for the house and show up and get the evidence no drama needed.


If I can think of that, why can't they?

Like I have said before we all think we are so sofistcated in our police and criminal justice system, but in much more brutal times those who enforced the law were severely punished if they burned innocents along with the guilty.

Because there are never any kids at 7-11? You might be right that it is a better choice to try and apprehend someone outside a home but you have more variables that could occur outside than in a home. Assuming that it would provide better results without having access to more data is wishful thinking. What is really needed is real research into the issue and fact based decision making.

Sometimes common sense is all that's needed. They did a great job of managing the "variables" in this case didn't they? All for some dope. I guess a certain amount of collateral damage can be expected in war? The kid was in the wrong place at the wrong time and should do a better job of deciding with whom to hang. Got what he had coming, huh?

The cops got a big adrenaline rush and a huge stash of drugs of the streets or did they?

A little of the type of sense that used to be common is a superior replacement for another "study" that will likely only conclude in harmony with the bias the researcher's grant funding started out with.

What may have been missed here is that entering the home while the suspect is away from it doesn't necessitate arresting him in some other public place where resistance may expose others to danger. The evidence for the arrest would come from the evidence seized with the warrant, which has to be served before an arrest is justified. However, it does remove virtually all risk that the subject will engage in a shootout with officers at the site where the warrant is executed.

In fact, it pretty much negates the need for a no knock warrant based on officer safety. We executed warrants like this routinely with just a couple of detectives and regular patrol officers unless we had a known armed and violent suspect. No MRAPS, no helmets, no M16's or MP5's - just good judgment and a little (now un)common sense.

TomsTXCHL wrote:dailymail.co.uk huh. This is the kind of thing that gives America a "wild west" reputation with the Yurpeans.

No mystery there.

They operate on the "if it bleeds, it leads" protocol just like our media do, and they know that anything that reinforces the "wild west" image of America will increase viewers and sell papers in their market.

gigag04 wrote:

EEllis wrote:

mamabearCali wrote:What I don't get is why, in the name of all that is holy, if firearms and drugs are known to be present and are such a threat to officers lives that they have to engage in combat tactics with potential children in the home, don't they wait for the guy to be leaving 7-11 and take him there then get a warrant for the house and show up and get the evidence no drama needed.


If I can think of that, why can't they?

Like I have said before we all think we are so sofistcated in our police and criminal justice system, but in much more brutal times those who enforced the law were severely punished if they burned innocents along with the guilty.

Because there are never any kids at 7-11? You might be right that it is a better choice to try and apprehend someone outside a home but you have more variables that could occur outside than in a home. Assuming that it would provide better results without having access to more data is wishful thinking. What is really needed is real research into the issue and fact based decision making.

But the children...


In all seriousness, I preferred car takedowns as it was easier to get the tactical advantage (tahoe, K9, and two patrol units). IMHO a high risk stop is more tactically sound and usually safer in cases of wrong house/car.

And when have you ever seen a high risk stop involving just 4 vehicles? None ever made it to the news, that's for sure, and there was the one up north (Schenectady NY?) where the two K9 units (from different agencies) let their dogs get too close to each other, and the news cut off the video just as they had a confrontation. I'll see if I can find the clip.

That said, I agree with you, and in cases like this one where kids were known to be present, much more tactically sound to isolate the BG instead of trying to control the whole house.

jimlongley wrote:much more tactically sound to isolate the BG instead of trying to control the whole house.

When is it ever sound judgement to give the opposition the home field advantage?

mamabearCali wrote:A little watchfulness a little creative thought on the part of law enforcement and many of these horrific situations can be easily avoided.

As much as we hammer Chicago, they did a great job running a sting a few years ago to get these type of guys off the street in an environment they were able to control.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/mo ... 6159940991
"MORE than 100 wanted fugitives were arrested in Chicago after sheriff's deputies tricked them into visiting a warehouse to collect bogus electronics prizes, the Chicago Tribune reports."
"One suspect rode a bus from Wisconsin to pick up his non-existent prize, while another ran several blocks to the warehouse because he was late for his appointment, authorities said."

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local/to ... aid/nf9SJ/
with an update.
there were 4 kids inside the home! and the cops recon was simply incompetent, no signs of the kids? but there was a mini van with car seats and stickers everywhere.
BG wasn't even in the home at the time and it's probably a good thing. this could have gone so far south so quickly and I think the sheriff realizes it. I think he also realizes he may not have a job come next election.

SewTexas wrote:http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local/to ... aid/nf9SJ/
with an update.
there were 4 kids inside the home! and the cops recon was simply incompetent, no signs of the kids? but there was a mini van with car seats and stickers everywhere.
BG wasn't even in the home at the time and it's probably a good thing. this could have gone so far south so quickly and I think the sheriff realizes it. I think he also realizes he may not have a job come next election.

Recon is the boring part of being a soldier. Well, actually my time at PLDC was spent doing almost nothing but recon and I found it fun, but still, not as fun as rocking a M-60 or popping off a M-203 grenade. Playing with the "ninja toys" as some call it, is the perk - why waste all that time checking if babies are in the home you are about to be going full ninja on, that could make it boring. Even the GBI is saying, "nothing to see here, move along citizen."



The war on drugs has ruined more innocent lives than drugs - MNSHO.

mayor wrote: I don't advocate drug use, ALCOHOL (and it is a drug) included, but people will use them anyway. The 'war on drugs' is government stupidity in all its glory. Drug use should be treated as a medical problem, not a criminal problem. this kind of government stupidity wouldn't be required.

What do you expect? We taught the population that 1 marijuana cigarette was equivalent to smoking 100 tobacco cigarets.. At least that's what I remember from school.
And we politicized the dangers of such drug use for years. We developed public opinion based on little more than political leanings, rather than any sort of scientific fact.

It's going to take a while for the dinosaurs to die off and get out of public office.

The war on drugs is a huge example of governmental waste that can't be stopped..

From the story:

He said a multijurisdictional drug unit issued a warrant and organized the SWAT operation. It's not clear if any drugs were found in the home during the raid.

All that and there is still confusion about drugs even being there? I would assume that if they actually found drugs, they would be trumpeting the fact to try and offset the horrible situation the kid was put into. My guess is major collateral damage and no drugs found in the house, regardless of whether deputies had previously made transactions there. Dealer's stashes can and do get moved....

mamabearCali wrote:
A little watchfulness a little creative thought on the part of law enforcement and many of these horrific situations can be easily avoided. Take him down as he walks from his house to the car. Take him down as he is driving on the highway and you can see he is alone. Do as was suggested and arrange a meeting at a place you can control the environment. Raids in the middle of the night where there are known innocents just because that is the listed address of the person are lazy and poor police work much of the time.

That is not wishful thinking that is using ones head to make a safer arrest that won't put innocents in harms way.

Don't take this the wrong way because I'm not an expert on this but what would make you think you are either? If there is an issue, your theory just seems like the flipside of it, not making real change. By that I mean the concern that I have is that the people in LE make decisions based on what they "Think" is the best way to go without really looking and availing themselves of the science and research that we could have on the subjects. There are issues with both your scenarios that would allow bad things to happen. Just they are different bad things than what happened here. What we need is better research and evaluation of the possibilities rather than having people who have never done it mandating how it occurs.