Md: The Cheye Calvo raid...

*sigh*

I'd think people would realize by now that arguing with those who are generally willing to defend such raids (often cops, but not always) is pretty futile. All you'll hear is a lot of "let's wait until all the facts come out," (or it's cousin, "let's wait for the results of the investigation") which while it sounds like a fantastic idea (facts being a good thing and all) usually just means "let's wait until the media has moved on and nobody cares anymore."

You'll rarely get them to condemn any actions by police...again, falling back on the standard "they did what they thought was appropriate given the circumstances" arguments. And, on the off chance that "the facts" or "the investigation" wind up showing that there was either negligence or malice on the part of the officers all you'll see is a Roadrunner-esque dust trail off into the sunset. Better luck next time, Mr. Coyote.

I remember being around this forum back when the Kathryn Johnston shooting happened...probably the best example because A) it resulted in the death of a human being, B) it was one of the instances where police malfeasance was most obvious from the get-go and C) it's a case where the outcome was pretty clear (including charges, confessions, guilty pleas, and prison time). Right after the raid, there were several people more than willing to defend the actions of the officers...even after the whole thing started to fall apart.

A couple months later, when the indictments came down and a new thread was started up, none of them showed. Now, it's possible that in those months all those posters had simply left the forum. It's also possible that "let's wait for the results of the investigation" or "let's wait until we have more facts" (and it's always more, regardless of how bad the current facts look) means exactly what I think it means.


This raid is just one more example of why the widespread acceptance of paramilitary tactics on the part of police is a "bad thing." It leads to property damage, traumatized occupants, dead pets, and sometimes dead people.

My prediction? In time, the facts will support the conclusion that the entry into the home was not reasonable, and the shooting of at least one of the dogs was also not reasonable. When this happens, assuming this thread is still around or another is started, Erik will be nowhere to be found.
 
Shaq did that on a raid in Florida. Raided the wrong house.:rolleyes: At least they didn't shoot the guys dog.

Anybody know this mayor? Is he Marion Barry's brother or something? Did the police see him open the package, roll up a joint, and start smoking? Guess Superman works on their force...

There is NO crime until the person getting the package KNOWS what it is, or, was involved in using the Federal system to ship the item...
 
Shortwave,
I disagree that anything about the details of the investigation have been clearly represented in the media. And, your assertions, while they may be correct, are speculative becasue of that. As are mine, which I;ve piointed out a couple of times.

"You continue to defend this botched up fiasco(again, what it is with facts known today) and IMO your not doing LEO justice."

Actually, I'm not so much defending as pointing out that we aren't in a posiiton to render judgement in that we "know" practically nothing about the incident. I've apparently stirred up the nest by attempting to correct some misconceptions and provide some insight into how such things happen and are decided.

"If more facts come out justifying LE actions, I`m sure you`ll see a change of feelings but till then I doubt it."

And if facts come out condemning their actions, I hesitate to say "more" in that practically none have come out to date, I'LL do the same. But, I won't rush to judgement. Note all the rushing: dock 'em, fire 'em, prosectute 'em, jail 'em... And you don't even know why. That's the same standard you use in decideing pro-CCW and residential SD cases, right? Riiiiight.

Which obviously annoys some. Take JuanCarlos, for example. Shame on me or anyone else for waiting to actually have enough information to decide one way or another. It isn't nearly as fun as pillorying people and things in the public square.

"An argument that this instance meets the dangerous, futile, and pointless categories can be made." - "OK, please make it."

The courts have held that drug raids by definition are inherently dangerous, and being discovered at the onset of one seen in that context can be enough to merit exigency. They've also held that knocking and announcing is not always necessary, instances where the occupants know you are outside being one of them; i.e. it would be futile ad pointless to knock and announce in that the purpose of knocking and announcing no longer exists.

The best courses of action? Maybe not, but that is not the topic. Is it permissible? Yes, but not always. Will it be deemed permissible in this instance? We have no way of knowing, and a ruling has not yet been announced.
 
I'll be out of town for several weeks with limited access to the internet. So the back and forth, if you have questions or want to illicit feedback from me, will likely have to wait. Who knows? Maybe by then we'll have a better line on the facts?
 
Since we are all armchair quarterbacks on this one...

Or, if you prefer, keyboard commandos, how about this....

We assume the facts as presented by the media are correct (even though we have our doubts), and argue the merits of the actions of all parties in the scenario as presented.

I know that the media reports often have only a tenuous connection with reality as it actually occurred, and likely we will not have all the pertinent facts until after an investigation (if then), but rather than start battling amongst ourselves over who support LEOs and who is "bashing" them, lets just pretend that the situation actually happened as reported, and make our judgements of that.

If we find out later that the media failed to give us all the relevant information, we should change our views accordingly, but until then, let us just deal with what we have.

Waiting until all the facts are out is simply hedging your bets. Certainly we should reserve our final judgement until this happens, and then apply it to reality, but until then, let us determine the merits and flaws of the people and tactics of the incident as if it really happened the way it was reported, and same any personal vitriol for later, "after all the facts are in".

Based on what has been reported so far, the police agencies involved are looking like they watch way too much TV instead of following established procedures. The whole attitude of "we are the law, and everything (and anything) we do is right and proper because you are a criminal (because we say you are) hangs over this incident like stench from an open sewer. Cops often get away with seeming to do as they please because, lets be honest, the majority of the people they do it to are criminals. After arrest, trial and conviction (which legally makes them criminals) there isn't a whole lot of sympathy for them if the police happened to treat them a bit less than politely.

HOWEVER, when they act this way, and are so obviously out of line that they don't even make an arrest, it leaves them with egg on their faces and something a bit more smelly on their shoes! I can see no defense for police actions in this case, because they didn't even arrest anyone! That, to me, is a tacit admission that they knew they screwed up.

AND then, shooting the family dogs! In most people's eyes that is just low, and mean. Putting down a hundred pound Rottweiler in attack mode, or a tiger guarding a pot field is one thing, but shooting family pets (especially from beyond contact distance) is just wrong. Remember that it was the shooting of the family dog that started the Ruby Ridge fiasco.

Why can't LEOs have a dedicated animal control officer, one trained and equipped for non-lethal neutralization of innocent animals? We certainly pay them enough to buy all kinds of tactical toys, why don't they spend some of that money on training and equipment to deal with dogs (or other dangerous pets like, say kittens) without shooting (or stomping) them to death.
(I know it isn't strictly fair to the officers involved in this raid to include them in the exact same category as the infamous ATF kitten stompers, but shooting down family pets tars them with the same brush, if not quite so heavily.)

Abuses of innocents by LEOs in the pursuit of their mandates are always going to happen, BUT they should be held to the minimum possible. The current Hollywood style SWAT tactics should be held to a minimum, and they are not. Agencies all over the country use SWAT teams and tactics for any and everything they can justify. This is wrong. It actually belittles the ordinary officers in the eyes of the public. Sure, SWAT style raids are dramatic, they look good on camera, and when they come off without a hitch, resulting in arrest(s) of violent offenders we all say, good job! But when the don't, when they raid the wrong house, and shoot pets, or worse, innocent people, when they get it obviously and clearly wrong they come off looking like trigger happy idiots. And the rate of this happening seems to be going up. That worries me, because along with the harm caused to the affected individuals, it promotes a general distrust and dislike for the LEOs in particular, and the rule of law, in general.
 
Which obviously annoys some. Take JuanCarlos, for example. Shame on me or anyone else for waiting to actually have enough information to decide one way or another. It isn't nearly as fun as pillorying people and things in the public square.
Click to expand...

Sorry if you feel unfairly pigeonholed, but based on your posts you seem like exact the kind of person who will never have "enough" information to condemn the actions of the police, because you set that bar impossibly high. And, as mentioned, the kind who would disappear if such information ever did actually pile so high that it was undeniable (as in the Johnston case).

There will never be a conclusion quite that clear on this one, since nobody was actually killed (no officers will likely get charged or convicted of anything in this case).

I'm simply doing what 44 AMP suggests, assuming that the story as presented by the media thus far (and they've had a few days to revise it) is probably for the most part true. Which, more often than not, is a pretty safe assumption. I mean, it's possible that the mayor will turn out to be a regular Nancy Botwin or something, but I doubt it. I have faith that once all the facts are out, it will be obvious that a much more reasonable course of action would have been to simply knock on the guy's door...at least, assuming that you don't find it reasonable to endanger the lives and destroy the property of actually innocent people (as opposed to those who are simply supposed to be presumed innocent, which we all know goes out the window in a drug raid).

EDIT: Also, consider this an honorary quoting of 44 AMP's entire last paragraph.
 
Eric, again please note as I have repeatidly stated that all facts were(are) not known at this time.Everything I posted has been based on things reported and have stated "if thoughs reports where correct". Thats what everyone here posting has to work with thus far. I`ve not jumped to any conclusions. What I stated was "if what we know is correct,heads should(will) role. I personally hope and can`t help but believe there`s much more to this story. Hope we find out. Be carefull and have a good trip.
 
Not out of the loop just yet...

44 AMP, I'm with you in the spirit of the first portion of your post, but have a different opinion as to what, if anything, is "obviously out of line." We don't know is a theme of mine. Fine, and not everyone must agree all the time about everything, obviously.

---

JC, I apply the same standard to non-police shootings as police shootings. Oddly enough, I'm probably as appreciated in the non-police shooting threads as I am unappraciated in the police shooting threads, and for stating more or less identical things. The call for the facts to come out and that they be viewed in the context of policy and law playing very well to the crowd on one hand, and very poorly to the same crowd when badges are involved, on the other. Shrug. At least I'm consistent.

---
Note: Many here are relatively well versed, some extremely so, in the aspects surrounding the rules, realities, and nuances of non-governmental shootings. The variouos NGS threads are chalked full of calls for the facts to come out, for the shooting to be seen in context, for the after action reports. Calls that sound vaguely, familiarly, like mine here. Perhaps that's just a coincidense, or maybe, just maybe, if you understood GS like you do NGS threads like this one would read differently.

---

SW, I get what you're saying. You seem to, similarly to 44A, be defaulting to a different position than mine. Yours being that the cops screwed up, mine being that we cannot know one way or another. That comes across to some here as defending the cops to the death argumentally, apprently. And thanks, hopefully the trip will go well.
 
Last edited:
JC, I apply the same standard to non-police shootings as police shootings. Oddly enough, I'm probably as appreciated in the non-police shooting threads as I am unappraciated in the police shooting threads. The call for the facts to come out and that they be viewed in the context of policy and law playing very well to the crowd on one hand, and very poorly to the same crowd when badges are involved, on the other. Shrug. At least I'm consistent.
Click to expand...

I like to think I'm fairly consistent as well. In the one non-police shooting I can think of that's analogous (the Joe Horn case, in that he created the situation that necessitated the shooting, like many of these raid situations and unlike most self-defense shootings) I was pretty critical of the shooter as well. I still am, despite the fact that the law turned out to be on his side...I'd still suggest that in that case it suggests that the law might need to be changed. Just like I think our policies regarding police use of force, particularly SWAT teams, need to be changed as well.

Point being that I don't think it's fair to compare regular self-defense shootings and situations like this raid. In the case of police raids, it's sometimes either police policies or the decisions of the officers themselves that lead to violent outcomes, not the actions of criminals. And those are the instances that people like myself will be most critical of.
 
JC,
The Joe Horn incident is an excellent example, and very germain to the topic, in more ways than one. A seemingly bad shoot, reported as such, tried in the court of public opinion from day one, complete with misunderstandings of the facts, the law, and a haze of emotionally impacting irrelevancies blurring the intellectual field of vision. (The misinformed droning on and on about the 911 tape, or analysing events based upon their understanding of New York or California law... Heck, even gun forums got sucked into it.) In the end, the relevant facts where scrutinized, and Horn was demonstratively righteous. That righteousness was lost on much of the nation, and probably still is.

And those calling for his prosecution, ruin, incarceration, even his death? (Especially those calling for the more extreme sanctions.) Or those calling for civil unrest,; riots et al? They by in large did not retract their statements or not conceed their error. Conceed... some of them don't even admit their error. Consequently, they are taken less serioulsy than they likely think of themselves.
 
Last edited:
JC,
The Joe Horn incident is an excellent example, and very germain to the topic. A seemingly bad shoot, reported as such, tried in the court of public opinion from day one, complete with misunderstandings of the facts, the law, and a haze of emotionally impacting irrelevancies blurring the intellectual field of vision. (The misinfomred droning on and on about the 911 tape, or analysing events based upon their understanding of New York or California law...) In the end, the relevant facts where scrutinized, and Horn was demonstratively righteous. That righteousness was lost on much of the nation, and probably still is.
Click to expand...

Actually, it is an excellent example, because for all the spin that was placed on the reporting of it depending where you were getting your news, the actual facts didn't really change much over the course of the reporting. The 911 tape, the circumstances regarding the actual shoot, all of that was reported fairly accurately right from the start (with the exception of a couple news outlets). The only significant fact I remember changing was the nationality of the burglars, but since Horn had no way of knowing that anyway it was hardly relevant to the shooting.

So anybody who came to a conclusion regarding the "righteousness" of that shoot based on an initial reporting of the facts was unlikely to change their mind. Not the legality of the shooting...there was plenty of misinformation and misunderstanding there, of course. But whether or not the shooting was itself a "good thing" and whether, assuming it was a legal shoot (and it was), that's a law that should be re-evaluated.

Here, again, we have a situation where (if I were a betting man) I'd put money on the facts not changing much. And since at least some of us are arguing that it's the underlying policies that need to change, whether or not these particular officers were within policy (which is to say, whether they end up being reprimanded or fired) isn't a conversation-ender either.

So yeah, excellent example of a situation where the facts as reported were quite accurate right from that start, and thus where anybody arguing based on those facts was perfectly reasonable in doing so. So at that point I have to wonder what "facts" you're waiting for this time. Whether or not the officers involved are cleared of wrongdoing? For those of us arguing that the policies leading to this raid are just as much of a problem (if not more so) as the actions of the officers themselves, I'd say that'll hardly be relevant.
 
The courts have held that drug raids by definition are inherently dangerous, and being discovered at the onset of one seen in that context can be enough to merit exigency.
Click to expand...

NO.!! Courts may justify certain types of raids as inherently dangerous. When you start misrepresenting the legal systems position, you draw a false conclusion. Warrants are designed to address each situation, on it's merits, by a level head, a judge, evaluating facts presented. The system is designed to PREVENT just such situations as this one.
Exigency is very specific, and, comes down to two issues:
distruction of evidence(sure, the Mayor was going to have a bon fire in his living room with 32 pounds of weed), or,
threat to a human life, i.e. a person in the house has his life threatened(Yah, man, let's smoke some weed and get violent:rolleyes:)

Not present in this case. BAD COPS.
 
Eric said:
The courts have held that drug raids by definition are inherently dangerous, and being discovered at the onset of one seen in that context can be enough to merit exigency.
Click to expand...
So if they knew they were raiding the mayor, and thus kept his police away, then this theory would seem to require that they had some reason to think the mayor was dangerous.

Eric said:
They've also held that knocking and announcing is not always necessary, instances where the occupants know you are outside being one of them; i.e. it would be futile ad pointless to knock and announce in that the purpose of knocking and announcing no longer exists.
Click to expand...
I guess it depends on what one considers "the purpose" of knocking and announcing. Is it to alert occupants to the presence of the warrant team, or is it to get the door open?
 
No! Yes! Maybe... And what judicial disctrict you are in matters quite a bit. It isn't cut and dry, and that is perhaps the best point that can be made.

---
P,
The mayor wasn't the target. The mayor's wife was. And no, they didn't have to be thought of as specifically dangerous; the situation being inherantly dangerous. Which in and of itself doesn't result in a breach, or they'd have had a no-knock. But an inherantly dangerous situation coupled with furhter articulation, such as discovery prior to getting in place... Maybe, as in courts have ruled that reasonable inteh past.

---
"Warrants are designed to address each situation, on it's merits, by a level head, a judge, evaluating facts presented."

Correct.

But... the law allows for officers on the scene to weigh and measure the facts as they see them and act accordingly. The justification, essentially the same that they'd swear to before a judge before hand, then comes after the fact. It should be noted that breaching tools almost alway go to the door when serving standard, knock and talk warrants. If they aren't needed, just leave them at the door or secure them back in the vehicles. But they're there because they are needed enough to be routine.

And exigent circumstances are nowhere near as narrow as you suggest.

---

An excellent resource for those interested in exploring the matter further:

http://www.fletc.gov/training/programs/legal-division/

The podcast section search warrant exigent circumstances pieces. Its just a taste, but it bound to broaden the pallets of most.
 
Last edited:
You know it's funny: I've got my J.D., and, worked for a year in a big city DA office. Our idea of the law on exigent circumstances, and the police were often different. The real problem is, the DA could rant and rave, and the rebooking attorney could tell the cop he wasted his time, and not file.

It was fairly rare for a citizen to sue the city, unless real damage was done, like some idiot shooting your dog, and, even then, it was settled quickly.
The lead officer/officers would go run off and hide behind his union rep, get a slap on the wrist.
Still, the police would take it as a win, since they got, and destroyed the evidence, and, made it less likely the person would try it again. Perhaps that's why the warrant system was created in the first place. I will say that there are certain situations that do require SWAT tactics, but, this was NOT one of them...

I guess my point is that the system inherently allows this abuse, with rare bad results for the officers. I will say I'm glad we had very few cowboys like this...
 
But are they cowboys, and should there be "bad results" for them, if they followed established guidelines? What if their actions are within the scope of their training and understanding of the law? Their understanding being coming from vetted training, much of it at the hands of career attorneys. What if they have a drawer full of memorandums from the offices of various chief counsels dealing with policy and legal updates, issued quarterly and stipulating what they can and cannot do as the landscape evolves? What if their DAs and AUSAs aren't ranting and raving about it, it general? What if the system does allow for it?
 
Erik:
I'm going to be blunt, and, the position I got was from a career DA, 20 years, like EF Hutton in court, and, from the hours a rook gets in judges chambers.

"WE are the law. We have the force of the entire government behind us. For this reason, we are held to a higher legal standard, and, it's our duty as judge, DA, and police, to uphold that higher moral position. If we cut corners, cheat, whatever, we put the people at a HUGE disadvantage, therefore, we will protect the people's rights as zealously as we prosecute crime.
It is better to let 100 go free, guilty, then convict one innocent, out of a 100."
 
Last edited:
Socrates wrote in part:

"The lead officer/officers would go run off and hide behind his union rep, get a slap on the wrist."

In my view, the responsible party (s), should be dragged out from behind the skirts of their union reps, and then have their heads chopped off, a figure of speech, lest some worry unduly. The slap on the wrist that Socratres mentioned will not do. Unfortunately, I suspect that his description of the ending is more right than wrong, in-so-far as that being the way the cookie usually often crumbles.

The fact that most of the population still retains a significant degree of respect for the law never ceases to amaze me, but the perhaps I'm to easily amused.
 
I hope people continue to have a respect for the law. As stated before"there are literally thous. of "warranted "warrants served everyday without a problem. IMO, LEO in most states has a pretty good record. As Socrates stated, theres a system in place to obtain a warrant as well as in most cases,serve the same. Mistakes or "bad" actions altering the whole system can and do happen. The problem is when those bad actions do happen to many times it is swept under the rug right in the noses of the public. Many times for political reasons (FOP being 2nd largest lobbying group in state I live in) an embarrasing situation such as this one doesn`t stay in headlines to long. Usually offended party settles out of court and state or city pays costs. Then the "hand slapping" is done. To many times thats the end. Nothing added or taken away from that above mentioned system to keep things from going bad the next time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top