SWAT accidental discharge

J

justice4all

New member
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/1211locbf.shtml


"A SWAT officer accidentally fired a round from his weapon during a search at a duplex in northeast Denver late Friday.

SWAT officers were attempting to carry out a "knock and announce" warrant at a duplex in the 3000 block of Clayton Street, police said. When the officers entered, one of them inadvertently discharged a round.

No one was wounded, and detectives recovered the round. The SWAT team was carrying out the search warrant on behalf of the police department's narcotics bureau, police said."


Last year in Denver SWAT officers killed a man because they had the wrong address for their no knock warrant. They claimed he fired first, and later settled with his family for around $400,000.

It simply amazes me what people are willing to risk and pay for in this insane war on drugs.

I wonder if this guy was one of the people who waited outside Columbine high school while teacher-hero Dave Sanders bled to death. Why is it that police are willing to risk their lives to prevent victimless crime, but refuse to protect people from lunatics?
 
Accidental discharges happen !! Its not right and a clear violation of fire arms safty rules But I think we all know some one who has had one. SWAT handles weapons a lot more than the rest of us.. If they hurt someone, and they are at fault then they should pay. Be safe Patrick
 
Yes, ADs happen.
ONLY BECAUSE OF A CASE OF STUPID.
(There is no such thing as an AD - but that is a thread for another forum... If you want to comment to that - start a thread about ADs in General.)
Some might simply blow this off as no one was hurt or killed. Funny - last time this happened an 11 year old boy was shot in the back with a 12 guage shotgun... but since this time no one was killed - Its just an AD.
My take on this is that THEY SHOULDNT HAVE BEEN THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE.

These SWAT teams serving warrents are the result of LAZY POLICE WORK. What happened to the drive way take downs? Or when the fellow was just getting in the car or going to his frequent destination?
I really dont think civilian police SWAT officers as a whole have the disipline, skills and training to be conducting these tasks.
(WHOA Hold the flamers! There are some very dedicated SWAT Pups out there with TONS of training and dedication... High Speed, Low Drag guys... I'm sure a hundred of you guys are thinking George is WRONG because I KNOW some one or a group... I SAID ON A WHOLE.
THAT MEANS ON AVERAGE... When you Average a group or Trend you have the high points - and the low points. Thats why its an AVERAGE.)
As I was saying - they shouldnt even be there in the first place. There are only a couple of reasons that justify SWAT action... Warrants of this nature are not one of them.
The War on Drugs is not one of them. Well, Shouldnt be.

Dang... These kinds of things make me want to RUN FOR OFFICE so I can change these things PERSONALLY.
 
Hmm.

More information would be nice. A three paragraph article giving a general location, the fact that a round was discharged, but not much else really isn't enough to make any sort of educated decision.

But that's just me.

LawDog
 
Trigger on the finger syndrome. I've seen it in police videos and on the range with civilians.

With modern arms, that's it kids.

Whether they should be there or not, I don't know.
If it was just looking for the old bag of dope, no.
 
BluesMan, I concede that there are some heroic individuals in LE, who would risk their skin to "protect and serve." But I agree with others who have said that the war on drugs does not warrant this sort of paramilitary response. This is another example of how innocent people can be caught in the crossfire of this drug war, even if they have never so much as seen an illegal substance.

Yes, accidental discharges do occur, but there is no excuse for one. Unless the trigger is pulled, they do not happen. One should not have their finger on the trigger unless their weapon is pointed at something they intend to destroy. Because someone has drugs in their house, does that mean they are worthy of destruction? There are better ways to apprehend a potential dangerous suspect.

LawDog, this was just a blurb in the local briefs section, way in the back of the paper. I wish more had been said about it, too. But it's not like it happened in a "good" part of town. The police don't often pull this kind of crap there. After Ismael Mena was gunned down because of an incorrect warrant, the local paper obtained information about where such no knock warrants were being served. Big surprise it was the poor/minority neighborhoods in the vast majority of the time. Is this because these are the only places where drugs are consumed and sold? Hardly.
 
Justice -

1. AD's happen, both to police and others. They should not be tolerated, but THEY WILL HAPPEN. Don't use this as an excuse to bash all cops.

2. You don't like the war on drugs? Great, neither do a lot of other people around here. Change the law. Don't get mad at the police officer who is assigned to take down a drug house.

This may come as a surprise to you, but check this out: drug dealers have guns. Lots of them have lots of guns. Sometimes they even know which end the bullet comes out.

Here is the point, I will try to make this as clear as possible: As long as we tell our police to go in and get armed bad guys, they are going to go in with guns drawn, ready to respond to potential threats. If you think you can do it better then have at it.

3. Police responded to the Columbine incident just as they were trained. Contain and negotiate. Unfortunately we have seen over the past two or three years that "Contain and Negotiate" does not always work, and more people die while police try to set it up. It is, however, a doctrine that has developed over a couple of decades and up until recently has proven very successful.

Are you aware that police nationwide have dramatically modified their response protocol for dealing with active shooter incidents? Of course not, because it is easier to maintain the belief that cops are stupid and cowards. You can maintain your moral superiority that way.

4. Why do police risk their lives for a victimless drug crime, but refuse to help an innocent shooting victim? Get real.

Go to Washington DC and take a look at the LEO memorial. How many names of dead cops are on that memorial? Any guess? TOO DAMN MANY!

Feel free to sit there and smugly claim that cops are cowards and dopes. They may be the only ones around to help you when you need them. Am I being melodramatic? I don't think so.

Last week in my town a 69-year-old woman was robbed and pistol whipped at 8 p.m. in a crowded parking lot. She called out to people walking by to call for help. They kept walking.

Who is going to be there for you? That dopey cowardly cop who doesn't even know you. Sleep well.

George - Want to talk about averages? There are great cops and there are lousy cops, but the average cop will do his absolute best to save your bacon in a crisis no questions asked.

Sorry George, some times I want to hug you, but some times you really tick me off. :)

Take down a guy in the driveway? That is an excellent technique, if you are serving an ARREST WARRANT. It doesn't do you a heck of a lot of good if you are trying to serve a SEARCH WARRANT when you actually have to go inside some BG's home, generally BEFORE you have the evidence to arrest him.

Shouldn't have been there in the first place? See my above remarks regarding citizens banding together to change the law, and drug dealers having guns.

Even an average SWAT team that has worked and trained together is better suited to make an entry on a warrant than a bunch of patrol cops without said training or experience. It's safer for the BG inside, and safer for the officers.

Regardless, if Murphy wants to ride along he's gonna do it. That doesn't make it right, just real rather than ideal.
 
SWAT teams, like the military, train for the last engagement. Sometimes the tactics work, other times not. Given that most teams work with limited funds and even less training time, I'm generally impressed with the work I've seen.

ADs happen to everyone, including so-called experts. What I tend to see is an 'I'm better than they are' mindset when it comes to LE. I'm talking about some of the people here. It's almost a jelousy thing. No, LE aren't perfect, but many are just as competent -if not moreso- than the rest of us. That said, it's a given that the guy with the AD is going to catch hell from everyone on his team....they might even pull him. Give these guys credit where it is due...most don't get any extra pay, and in fact buy a LOT of equipment out of their pay.

Yeah, everyone wants to see better training and personnel, but that costs money. Some people want to see the 'war on drugs' eliminated. Stop whining and get involved politically. Put up or shut up comes to mind....but don't forget to think about how you would act in the same circumstance. I have a unique perspective -I quit my job for a Sheriff's Department on moral grounds. I'm still trying to find a job after two months. If I had it to do over again, I would probably just go along to get along, and still have my profession. I like the idea of eating and living under a roof. I couldn't imagine how bad it would be for guys with wives and kids.

My point is this---don't get on your high horse until you are willing to take the same risks and consequences.
 
I'm with George on this one (I think).

I don't like the term AD one bit. Auto safety types don't call car crashes "accidents" any more - they call them "crashes". They occur because of misuse of the vehicle. This is not accidental; someone has to act in an unsafe way to create a crash.

Similarly, with modern firearms, there are vanishingly few accidental discharges, or AD's - there are negligent discharges, ND's.

Let's call them what they are. No Orwellian Doublespeak allowed here. . . .
 
I am not a nut,

1. I'm not bashing all cops, I'm bashing the ones who pull the trigger when they shouldn't.

2. I don't like the war on drugs. I speak and write letters in opposition to it. I vote Libertarian. I'm trying to change the law. I do get mad at the police because I consider them complicit in the continuation of the war. Everytime there is an attempt to change the law, the police come out against it. For instance, the voters of Colorado recently decided that certain people should be allowed to use cannabis to alleviate their suffering. The police campaigned vigorously to prevent the measure from passing. IMO the police like the war because it leads to larger budgets, and neat new nifty gadgets.

3. If it had been a cop, and not just "civilians" inside CHS, would the cops really have "contained and negotiated?" These people admit that they will wait outside while a massacre is occurring, but at the same time oppose shall-issue CWPs. They won't defend the average citizen, but don't want the average citizen to have that right.

4. Your statement about the Memorial in DC, as a response to my comments does not make sense. I have not denied that cops die in the line of duty, and I readily concede that some of these people are truly heroes. Your statement would seem to imply that all, or the majority, of the names on that wall are there as a result of attempts to help innocent people from attack. I would guess that quite a few of them lost their lives while attempting to prosecute an unwinnable war on the civil and human rights of people in this country. If you know the relative proportion, I would be happy to read it.
 
I'm not a cop (obviously) but I have known quite a few, both in a previous profession as a small-town journalist (covering the police beat, I spent at least 2 hours each work day hanging out at the "cop shop"), and more recently as I get to know people I meet at shooting ranges.

What I have seen is that there is a considerable range of intelligence and good will but overall two characteristics strongly show themselves: a ready willingness to "kick ass" and an air of something that's not quite moral superiority, but maybe just the knowledge that if we came to serious disagreement, there's no question the cop can and should win.

I can deal with this attitude, and considering the job environment of most cops I don't think it's altogether unreasonable. What really bothers me, and I think this is the source of most "anti-cop" sentiment, is the difference in legal standards applied to cops versus civilians.

In cases where cops inappropriately shoot civilians, then absent blindingly clear malicious intent the very worst that happens to the cop is the cop loses his job and has to relocate to a distant community. In a few rare exceptions, cops have been criminally prosecuted, but I can't think of an example of cops being criminally convicted for such actions (perhaps Law Dog can provide some numbers or examples). The victims and their survivors get "justice" in the form of a blood money payment from the employing government agency, which of course is money taken from taxpayers who had no complicity in the matter.

In cases where civilians inappropriately shoot civilians, a felony conviction is practically guaranteed, and jail time is likely.

In cases where civilians accidentally shoot cops, they likely as not don't survive to be tried.

Cops and their defenders justify this double-standard based on necessity, that you couldn't get people to do what cops do unless they had special immunities from criminal and civil liability.

Which is my point exactly. If cops faced the same likely penalties as everyone else for bad acts, they'd be less likely to commit them, being human. And if you couldn't get cops to execute no-knock warrants unless they had immunity, maybe we shouldn't _have_ no-knock warrants -- and if we can't pursue our War on Some Drugs without no-knock warrants and police immunity from personal responsibility, maybe we our government should refrain from warring on its own citizens.

OTOH, it can be argued that cops wouldn't be able to protect citizens' lives and property without personal immunity. If the police can't, then citizens can't either; and if that's the case, we have a legal regime which prevents people from defending themselves and each other and therefore needs to be reformed or abolished. Making special-case rules for one group of citizens, which makes everyone else second-class citizens, is the wrong answer.
 
In cases where civilians inappropriately shoot civilians, a felony conviction is practically guaranteed, and jail time is likely.
Click to expand...

Just off-paw, I can think of two 'inappropriate shootings done by civilians' that tend to contradict that statement. One left a Japanese man dead for knocking on a front door and got a nice petition signed by everyone in Japan forwarded to President Clinton; the other left a Scottish man dead for, IIRC, whizzing in a hedge.

Both shot dead, and not only no felony convictions, but no convictions at all.

Good thing they weren't cops, hmm? Last I heard, neither one of the shooters had to
loses his job and has to relocate to a distant community.
Click to expand...

I'm sure, if someone doesn't mind the slime, that CPHV and/or the DOJ would be more than happy to provide more cases where someone was killed by a 'civilian' and the inapproriate shooter was not convicted.

LawDog
 
Posted by justice4all
"3. If it had been a cop, and not just "civilians" inside CHS, would the cops really have "contained and negotiated?" These people admit that they will wait outside while a massacre is occurring, but at the same time oppose shall-issue CWPs. They won't defend the average citizen, but don't want the average citizen to have that right."

Yes the LEOs would have contained and negotiated if it was an LEO inside, this is standard operating procedure. For examples of this watch the cop shows that are on tv and you will see this. I am an LEO (and there are many on this BBB) that support RKBA. Polls have shown most rank and file LEOs support RKBA. Don't confuse the politicians, chiefs and unions, with line LEOs. I do not know any LEOs that "won't defend the average citizen". That is why we do this job. Please do not paint LEOs with such a broad brush, it would be like me saying average citizens are BGs.
 
justice4all -

While you may not have come out and said ALL cops were buffons and cowards, the wording of your message certainly IMPLIED that was the case. Since that was not your intent, I will no longer be offended. As much as I was anyway.

If an LEO were inside Columbine, at the time it went down, would the cops have used the contain and negotiate protocol? Absolutely. And the cop inside would have known it.

If that happened today, where a cop was trapped inside, would the cops use the same protocol? No way. But they wouldn't use it if anyone else was in there either. Training and tactics have evolved.

Also - Don't be confused about whether the rank and file police officer supports RKBA, it is a well established fact that they do. If you don't believe me, get out and talk to some, wherever it is that you reside.

Unfortunately, the chief's associations do not support RKBA, and they are primarily political animals. I think that explains their stance. The regular Joe Cop on the job doesn't spend any more of his paycheck on political issues than anyone else, which is to say zero, so you don't hear about their side.

The unions are political as well, constantly supporting Democrat candidates that support gun control, but also support better wages and benefits for their members.

As far as passing petitions and voting for Libertarians, good for you. But don't ask, or expect, that the cop on the beat is going to ignore the current law. He/She is being paid to enforce the rules of society. Unfortunatly for you, society as a whole is not willing to legalize drugs in this country at this time. That is not the fault of the police, don't ask them to dishonor their oaths and NOT enforce the law.

As far as no knock warrants, we don't have 'em in Michigan, nor does the majority of the country. Maybe that is a law you could look to overturn in your area that would be easier than drug legalization.

As you didn't mention the fact that our cops ARE assigned to take down armed and often fortified buildings, is it safe to assume that you do not have a problem with properly trained and equipped officers doing this? Or would you be more comfortable with officers going in with holstered weapons and not drawing them until the are fired upon from behind cover?

Oh yeah, I almost forgot. There are any number of ways an AD or ND could have occurred short of the copper being an idiot.

Perhaps he was jumped when he rounded a corner and a struggle ensued. Perhaps he was a clutz and tripped over an end table in the living room he was trying to clear at midnight (without the benefit of a neat nifty gadget known as a sure-fire light because the chief would rather spend the budget money on some PR B.S.) Perhaps he slipped on the ice on the front porch as he was trying to kick the front door because the bad guy refused to open it when he knocked and announced.

Without further data I think it is irresponsible to AUTOMATICALLY ASSUME that the cop was a moron that knew nothing about weapon handling. Like it or not, cops handle their weapons in a number of ways that the average citizen never need to.

Think of your own situation. If you are walking around with a drawn weapon, finger alongside the trigger guard as it should be, what is your reaction to falling down? Many people would let go of the gun and brace themselves with their hands. Others would grip the gun firmly and try to brace themselves. And some people would accidentally let their finger touch the trigger on the way down. Does that make it right? No, but it does give you something to think about.

Anyhow, as I now you don't hate ALL cops, only those who have AD / ND's I will bid you goodnight. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top