Police Raid First, Figure Out What They're Raiding Later
This is how innocent people get killed -- when the police come in all SWAT team without asking questions first. Alex Horton, who himself conducted raids on insurgents in Iraq, writes in the WaPo about the police raid on his apartment:
I had conducted the same kind of raid on suspected bombmakers and high-value insurgents. But the Fairfax County officers in my apartment were aiming their weapons at a target whose rap sheet consisted only of parking tickets and an overdue library book....I spread my arms out to either side. An officer jumped onto my bed and locked handcuffs onto my wrists. The officers rolled me from side to side, searching my boxers for weapons, then yanked me up to sit on the edge of the bed.
At first, I was stunned. I searched my memory for any incident that would justify a police raid. Then it clicked.
Earlier in the week, the managers of my apartment complex moved me to a model unit while a crew repaired a leak in my dishwasher. But they hadn't informed my temporary neighbors. So when one resident noticed the door slightly cracked open to what he presumed was an unoccupied apartment, he looked in, saw me sleeping and called the police to report a squatter.
Sitting on the edge of the bed dressed only in underwear, I laughed. The situation was ludicrous and embarrassing. My only mistake had been failing to make sure the apartment door was completely closed before I threw myself into bed the night before.
...When I later visited the Fairfax County police station to gather details about what went wrong, I met the shift commander, Lt. Erik Rhoads. I asked why his officers hadn't contacted management before they raided the apartment. Why did they classify the incident as a forced entry, when the information they had suggested something innocuous? Why not evaluate the situation before escalating it?
Rhoads defended the procedure, calling the officers' actions "on point." It's not standard to conduct investigations beforehand because that delays the apprehension of suspects, he told me.
Rhoads also defends the approach on grounds of officer safety. But civilian safety should be a priority, too -- to the point where you sometimes, yes, delay or even miss the apprehension of suspects...until you're sure that you've, say, got the right apartment and have evidence that the people in it are guilty of something other than overdue library books.
RELATED -- my fun experience with LAPD officers playing SWAT.
Oh, and did I mention that I was the victim here? A woman hit my parked car. No, my parked car did not leap up out of the space and slam into hers. Which is why her insurance company ended up giving me $661 for the damage her car did to mine.
So...why was the LAPD outside my house at 11 p.m., using their patrol car loudspeaker, "Amy Alkon, come out of the house"?
Oh, it's such fun to pretend you're the SWAT team when there's a 51-year-old woman in the house who is only guilty of being a few days behind in giving her dog a bath. (I don't do drugs -- though I support what should be your right to do them. I even stop at stop signs. Completely.)
Yet, cop car loudspeaker: "Amy Alkon, come out of the house!"
Oopsy, Amy knows her rights. "Nothing doing!" (Assholes!)
The problem is that the police should be more dedicated to maintaining the peace then catching "possible criminals" by which I mean "Everyone."
Matt at July 26, 2015 10:46 PM
I probably should add that my thought of punishment for a squatter is to throw him/her into the street and NOT into jail.
You know, if the cops think I am guilty of anything, they can just send me a summons and I'll appear. If they feel the need to give it to me in person, just fucking knock.
Matt at July 26, 2015 10:53 PM
All the cops, chiefs, and city officials should be questioned. Any who say that a knock on the door was not the first step should be fired.
jerry at July 26, 2015 11:07 PM
Why would a SWAT team be needed for a squatter? Do you really need one for some homeless vet or gutterpunk kid?
NicoleK at July 27, 2015 3:37 AM
The Goddess writes: "Rhoads also defends the approach on grounds of officer safety."
I'm all for officer safety, but when it comes to their safety vs. that of civilians, shouldn't they be the ones to assume the risk?
Patrick at July 27, 2015 4:36 AM
See what I write after that, Patrick!
Amy Alkon at July 27, 2015 5:20 AM
One of these days, a SWAT raid is going to go horribly wrong. They're going to kick in the wrong door, and on the other side will be a well armed vet with a bad case of PTSD.
If they're lucky, he'll just capture them, disarm them, and handcuff them with their own cuffs.
I R A Darth Aggie at July 27, 2015 6:32 AM
Of course they defended their procedures. If they took ten minutes to do some basic investigation first, it might have deprived them of their chance to play soldiers. I fear the day will come when someone who knows how to manipulate that system will set up a booby-trapped house.
Cousin Dave at July 27, 2015 6:35 AM
"It's not standard to conduct investigations beforehand because that delays the apprehension of suspects."
WTF? That statement makes no sense to me. None what so ever.
If you do not investigate how on earth do you know that they are suspects? Just taking someone's word on that?
I guess it would be okay for firemen to pull up to a building and start spraying water on it because someone told them it was on fire, without checking to see it was, you know, actually on fire.
Yea, that was kind of a stupid statement. Why don't they see how stupid their statement was?
charles at July 27, 2015 6:46 AM
@IRA Darth Aggie: "One of these days, a SWAT raid is going to go horribly wrong."
Slightly different scenario than what you're imagining, but it's happened before:
http://www.kbtx.com/home/headlines/Man-Charged-With-Killing-Burleson-County-Deputy-No-Billed-by-Grand-Jury-243993261.html
ahw at July 27, 2015 12:21 PM
IRA Darth Aggie:
Already happened.
https://www.google.com/search?q=Jose+Guerena
The SWAT team ended up firing at least 71 rounds wildly.
The Marine being shot never took his AR-15 off safe.
Luckily he had trigger discipline. I'd tell you to watch the video, but it's stomach-churning to see the reckless abandon - at one point a cop is jumping up and down with his pistol over his head and shooting while jumping.
Unix-Jedi at July 27, 2015 12:29 PM
Seat reams are 'supposed' to be used where there is reports of a weapon or a location where weapons are likely I.e. drug dealer. When in this scenario of a squatter was a weapon reported? Or was it more likely that the swat team were doing nothing so may as well use them, eh?
peter at July 28, 2015 6:23 AM
What do you expect when the head of the law-making body for the country says that we have to pass a law to see what's in it - instead of, you know, reading it.
We had to raid the house to see what was in it.
We've created a ruling class out of philistines and wonder why the culture has gotten coarser.
Conan the Grammarian at July 28, 2015 9:08 AM
Agree with Darth Aggie. Not everybody sleeps the sleep of the just and righteous. And some of us have nervous dogs.
Richard Aubrey at July 28, 2015 10:51 AM
Get used to it. [You] voted for this, [you] supported this, [you] sacrificed liberty for 'safety from terrorists', SO ENJOY, AMERIKA! Suckered into believing "(/11 is reallllll", and there's "really a war on terror"!
[You] are getting EXACTLY WHAT YOU DESERVE.
Effing sheep. Gettin' allllllllllllll excited, again, for Hillary, or Jeb, or maybe Ostool running for a 3rd Term - oh, wait; That's 'illegal'. Pftttttttttttttttttttt.
Hope & Change, baby!
Occams at July 29, 2015 9:48 PM
Leave a comment