And that's pretty much irrelevant at this point, except for educational purposes, in that the issue is not how they obtianed a warrant, or whether they had a warrant, but whether or not the warrant service team's action in (1) breaching the threshold and (2) shooting the dogs (each shooting should be reviewed independently) was appropriate.
Md: The Cheye Calvo raid...
- Thread starter hammer4nc
- Start date
The only reason there is outrage against the shooting of the dogs is that the dogs were, in essence, "innocent victims" of the raid. The fact that they were widely described as friendly and playful does not mean that during the raid they were non-threatening. Even the friendliest dogs will bark, growl and "sound the alarm" for it's pack (family).
I think the most telling will be the necropsy of the dog said to be running away. If it is shown that the dog was retreating, the responsible officer(s) should face charges of unnecessary force.
Many people treat their pets as small children and have more sympathy for animals than people*. Seeing beloved pets gunned down, especially from behind, is as traumatic for some as watching their children being slaughtered.
* Recall the news story of the momma-cat that re-entered the burning building several times to save her kittens? She was badly burned and disfigured, yet the animal hospital received well over 5,000 requests to adopt her and her kittens. Yet no one volunteered to assist two people injured in the fire.
I think the most telling will be the necropsy of the dog said to be running away. If it is shown that the dog was retreating, the responsible officer(s) should face charges of unnecessary force.
Many people treat their pets as small children and have more sympathy for animals than people*. Seeing beloved pets gunned down, especially from behind, is as traumatic for some as watching their children being slaughtered.
* Recall the news story of the momma-cat that re-entered the burning building several times to save her kittens? She was badly burned and disfigured, yet the animal hospital received well over 5,000 requests to adopt her and her kittens. Yet no one volunteered to assist two people injured in the fire.
Erik said:
Does it really? It doesn't seem that close to me. The "destruction of evidence" argument is pretty silly considering the sheer volume of the evidence in question. That leaves the danger to officers as the "exigent circumstance" in this case.
If they knew who they were dealing with, as suggested previously in this thread, then the "danger to officers" was that the mayor and his wife might shoot them. Not much need to go further with that one.
If they did not know who they were dealing with, then the "danger to officers" was that anyone who received that much pot might also be someone who would shoot police serving a warrant. How often do people really try to stop a warrant search by shooting the cops? Not very often, which is why we have special "no knock" warrants for those few who just might decide to do that. The presumption that people being searched will probably shoot is just not reasonable to me, because most people don't do that.
"Does it really? It doesn't seem that close to me."
Yes. Hundreds (thousands?) of warrants are served daily, keep in mind.
"The "destruction of evidence" argument is pretty silly considering the sheer volume of the evidence in question. That leaves the danger to officers as the "exigent circumstance" in this case."
Go back and read what I posted about exigent circumstances. Note the parts about such as when knocking and announcing may be "futile" and "pointless."
The point is that exigent circumstances aren't a clearly defined "if this than that" list of scenarios and responses. Things happen, officers respond one way or another, and their actions are reviewed with a courts decided/approved/mandated heavy emphasis on their point of view at the time the action was taken. And... it was a drug raid. I know many here resent it, but the courts have decided that drugs = guns and violence, among other things, and the reviewers will see it that way; it being the context, after all.
"The presumption that people being searched will probably shoot..."
The presumption is that the cops are allowed to do what is reaosnable to control the scene. If there was a presumption that shooting would occur they'd have secured a no-knock and there'd be much less to discuss.
Yes. Hundreds (thousands?) of warrants are served daily, keep in mind.
"The "destruction of evidence" argument is pretty silly considering the sheer volume of the evidence in question. That leaves the danger to officers as the "exigent circumstance" in this case."
Go back and read what I posted about exigent circumstances. Note the parts about such as when knocking and announcing may be "futile" and "pointless."
The point is that exigent circumstances aren't a clearly defined "if this than that" list of scenarios and responses. Things happen, officers respond one way or another, and their actions are reviewed with a courts decided/approved/mandated heavy emphasis on their point of view at the time the action was taken. And... it was a drug raid. I know many here resent it, but the courts have decided that drugs = guns and violence, among other things, and the reviewers will see it that way; it being the context, after all.
"The presumption that people being searched will probably shoot..."
The presumption is that the cops are allowed to do what is reaosnable to control the scene. If there was a presumption that shooting would occur they'd have secured a no-knock and there'd be much less to discuss.
I already questioned that in a previous post, and still don't understand what it was in this situation that could have made knocking futile. Can you explain?
To me, knocking would be futile if, for example, you know no one is home. Or if, for another example, you know that they will not let you inside, and you'll have to bust the door anyway. But if it's reasonable to believe that the occupants will open the door if you knock, then knocking doesn't seem to me a futile way to get the door open.
I conclude that they must have had some reason to believe the occupants would not open the door. Absent such a reason, knocking doesn't seem futile. I can't imagine that they had such a reason and have not shared it as yet, given the publicity surrounding the case.
What am I missing?
From where I'm sitting, we are or will be seeing a giant size cover-up of, by and for the advantage/benefit of officialdom involved.
As to other aspects, as I mentioned in an earlier post, if one were to become that proverbial "fly on the wall" in certain offices, where this affair is discussed amongst the responsible parties, county prosecutors, Sheriffs Dept. and insurance carriers, I suspect that one would become party to some interesting conversations.
Finally, Erik closed a post with the following: "The presumption is that the cops are allowed to do what is reasonable to control the scene. If there was a presumption that shooting would occur they'd have secured a no-knock and there'd be much less to discuss".
The foregoing leaves one wondering as to the following. How is "reasonable" spelled and whose "presumption" is the subject of discussion here.
As to other aspects, as I mentioned in an earlier post, if one were to become that proverbial "fly on the wall" in certain offices, where this affair is discussed amongst the responsible parties, county prosecutors, Sheriffs Dept. and insurance carriers, I suspect that one would become party to some interesting conversations.
Finally, Erik closed a post with the following: "The presumption is that the cops are allowed to do what is reasonable to control the scene. If there was a presumption that shooting would occur they'd have secured a no-knock and there'd be much less to discuss".
The foregoing leaves one wondering as to the following. How is "reasonable" spelled and whose "presumption" is the subject of discussion here.
Jimpeels's example is a good one: a seemingly a bad shoot, and certainly hyped that way by the media at the time.
The Queens DA commented, ''The marshal's conduct was a terrible mistake that could have had even more tragic consequences, such as the youngster being killed. But after a very full presentation of all the evidence, the grand jury concluded that the marshal's acts did not rise to the level of criminality.''
The General Counsel for the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association responded that the grand jury had done its duty by acquitting his client, and commented, ''The grand jury agreed that we don't have a criminal on our hands here. Our position is and has been that this was an unavoidable accident, one that Mr. Cannon felt horrible about. Nevertheless, if the matter occurred exactly the same way tomorrow, without the hindsight of knowing it was a candy bar in Mr. Burgess's hand, he would have reacted the same way.''
Note: The results of the DOJ and USMS inqueries are not available.
It isn't the intent, not even the facts, but the mechanics and the judgement calls leading up to them seen through the prism of that particular moment in time, not hind sight, not even hind sight a few seconds later in time. It is not nearly as black and white as many argue.
---
"Eric,you keep argueing the mechanics of how raid was done."
See immediately above. The breach, the shooting, the detention, the search... they are mechanics, and what most posters have concentrate on, not just me. My analysis is perhaps "drier" that some have exibit, granted. Two of those mechanics, the breach and shooting, cannot be properly analyzed without access to the information submitted in justification for them. And we "know" almost nothing else at this time.
"Do you think LE screwed up in the investigation prior to the "drug raid" not finding out the occupants of dwelling?"
There is not enough information available to speculate. But, if you are interested in speculation, it would be unusual for the investigators to not conduct the necessary integrated checks to satisfy both operational and judicial concerns.
The Queens DA commented, ''The marshal's conduct was a terrible mistake that could have had even more tragic consequences, such as the youngster being killed. But after a very full presentation of all the evidence, the grand jury concluded that the marshal's acts did not rise to the level of criminality.''
The General Counsel for the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association responded that the grand jury had done its duty by acquitting his client, and commented, ''The grand jury agreed that we don't have a criminal on our hands here. Our position is and has been that this was an unavoidable accident, one that Mr. Cannon felt horrible about. Nevertheless, if the matter occurred exactly the same way tomorrow, without the hindsight of knowing it was a candy bar in Mr. Burgess's hand, he would have reacted the same way.''
Note: The results of the DOJ and USMS inqueries are not available.
It isn't the intent, not even the facts, but the mechanics and the judgement calls leading up to them seen through the prism of that particular moment in time, not hind sight, not even hind sight a few seconds later in time. It is not nearly as black and white as many argue.
---
"Eric,you keep argueing the mechanics of how raid was done."
See immediately above. The breach, the shooting, the detention, the search... they are mechanics, and what most posters have concentrate on, not just me. My analysis is perhaps "drier" that some have exibit, granted. Two of those mechanics, the breach and shooting, cannot be properly analyzed without access to the information submitted in justification for them. And we "know" almost nothing else at this time.
"Do you think LE screwed up in the investigation prior to the "drug raid" not finding out the occupants of dwelling?"
There is not enough information available to speculate. But, if you are interested in speculation, it would be unusual for the investigators to not conduct the necessary integrated checks to satisfy both operational and judicial concerns.
Last edited:
How can you people even come close to justifying this?
First off, it's flat out entrapment, unless the LEO have evidence that the sender was a family member, etc. Not presented.
With all the time they had, not getting a warrant is a violation of due process.
The entire shooting a dog, running away from you is just :barf:
Keep rationalizing, and, we will have a police state...
First off, it's flat out entrapment, unless the LEO have evidence that the sender was a family member, etc. Not presented.
With all the time they had, not getting a warrant is a violation of due process.
The entire shooting a dog, running away from you is just :barf:
Keep rationalizing, and, we will have a police state...
shortwave writes in response to my post #110, I assume:
Alan,by your correct posting I since your used to dealing with gov. also.
Other than rather routine matters, filing tax returns, applying for/renewing passports and drivers licenses, that sort of thing, not really however I've known several people involved in Law Enforcement, and I also tend to recognize what is likely human nature at work, which includes man's tendency to cover up mistakes, wherever/whenever possible. In this particular case, I submit that there were all manner of "mistakes", and that all manner of effort will be bent toward the covering up thereof.
Alan,by your correct posting I since your used to dealing with gov. also.
Other than rather routine matters, filing tax returns, applying for/renewing passports and drivers licenses, that sort of thing, not really however I've known several people involved in Law Enforcement, and I also tend to recognize what is likely human nature at work, which includes man's tendency to cover up mistakes, wherever/whenever possible. In this particular case, I submit that there were all manner of "mistakes", and that all manner of effort will be bent toward the covering up thereof.
"How can you people even come close to justifying this?"
How can some of the rest of you come close to condemning it, knowing almost nothing about it? The case and the general topic, it seems.
"First off, it's flat out entrapment..."
No, it is not.
Entrapment is when a person is induced or persuaded by law enforcement officers or their agents to commit a crime that the person had no previous intent to commit; and the law as a matter of policy forbids conviction in such a case.
How can some of the rest of you come close to condemning it, knowing almost nothing about it? The case and the general topic, it seems.
"First off, it's flat out entrapment..."
No, it is not.
Entrapment is when a person is induced or persuaded by law enforcement officers or their agents to commit a crime that the person had no previous intent to commit; and the law as a matter of policy forbids conviction in such a case.
Quote Erik:
"Entrapment is when a person is induced or persuaded by law enforcement officers or their agents to commit a crime that the person had no previous intent to commit; and the law as a matter of policy forbids conviction in such a case."
You mean like being in possession of the narcotics the police put on your doorstep?
"Entrapment is when a person is induced or persuaded by law enforcement officers or their agents to commit a crime that the person had no previous intent to commit; and the law as a matter of policy forbids conviction in such a case."
You mean like being in possession of the narcotics the police put on your doorstep?
Eric, don`t think I`ve speculated in one thing I`ve posted on this thread. Go back and re-read statements. You`ll notice many post say "facts as we know them today", or to that effect,as I`m well aware many facts may later come out. The facts that we know today,CLEARLY shows a breach in the investigative portion of this whole operation as well as miserably failed communication between county and local LE. Not to mention (if your familiar with sustaining a warrant) ,viable info. was not given to judge or we wouldn`t be disscussing this now cause this whole thing would have been handled differently. Am I speculating on the fact that Leo supposedly didn`t know this was the mayors house. You continue to defend this botched up fiasco(again, what it is with facts known today) and IMO your not doing LEO justice. I don`t blame the officers carrying out the raid but I sure as hell blame from the sgt. on up to case lead investigator. I don`t bash LEO and have posted in and started a few threads defending them. I`m also very aware that LE isn`t perfect and when they screw up on an administrative level are prone to be "very creative" as to save political embarrasment. Seems as though,this time, the screw up may have happened with somebody with a bit of political clout also thats not afraid to pursue things. We`ll see. If more facts come out justifying LE actions, I`m sure you`ll see a change of feelings but till then I doubt it.