Did he know they were police?
If you think “the police acted appropriately” and are accusing others of being overblown and hyperbolic, what you need is a blue button that un-hypocrites your posts.
FFS, what is wrong with you?
I have a loaded 16 gauge pump under my side of the bed and a loaded .357 magnum S&W in the nightstand drawer. I’m generally law abiding. If our door were to be kicked in by people screaming “Police” it would likely mean I’d go to jail for the rest of my life or be killed. 
What would you do?
The squealers can’t give a warning before they bust down a door, the bad guys might destroy evidence, or arm themselves. Going after people who use or sell drugs is more important than your right to be safe in your own home.
Welcome to America.
If you’re referring to elv1s’s link, then I am actually horrified. The use of SWAT teams randomly breaking into peoples’ houses for bullshit warrants is what we should all be up in arms about.
When the police come to search my home, with a warrant? Let them search it. If the warrant isn’t valid, sue them and live comfortably for the rest of my life. You don’t get to threaten cops with a shotgun just because you know you’re innocent.
Or is the claim that these were undercover cops in civilian clothing? There’s nothing in the article to suggest that.
To make something clear, if there was any wrongdoing here, it was by the judge that issued the warrant, not the police. They were doing their job. The anger here is misplaced.
Yeah, I’ve been at least somewhat “on the side” of the cops in some of these recent threads, and I have nothing at all to say in their defense in this situation (assuming that what we’re hearing is even remotely what actually happened). Whoever made the key decisions leading to that tragedy should face very serious consequences (arguably up to jail time, not sure what the precedent is for things like that), and I hope the widow successfully sues the CRAP out of the police department.
Knowing myself to be law abiding, I would assume someone battering down my door is not officer friendly and do my damnedest to empty my weapon.
ETA: in fact, when I applied for my concealed carry permit my cop-buddy taught me, among other things, to do just that. We did simulations and all, including emptying a handgun into a target moving toward me in dim light (at an indoor range equipped to do that).
Assuming that it was the judge who decided that (a) there should be a warrant in the first place based on nothing but testimony from a known thief, and (b) crucially, that it should be a no-knock warrant, then I agree entirely (assuming that the cops are legally required to serve the warrant given to them in the fashion that the warrant demands).
Deciding that there’s any point to searching that guy’s house at all is a BAD decision (again, given the information that we as observers have). Deciding that they should serve that warrant by sneaking up in camouflage and busting down the door with no warning is a TERRIBLE decision. Literally a fatal one.
It wasn’t a no-knock warrant, and the police announced themselves.
From here.
Why is it that the retards always cherry-pick their sources for the information that best supports their predispositions?
Your article also says:
I’m willing to accept that it might have happened like the cops say it did, and that Mrs. Hooks’s story is inaccurate, but until the investigation happens i’m not willing to discount the possibility that the story being told by the cops might not be completely accurate either.
And this is precisely the problem with the defend-cops-at-all-costs morons. They assume the very thing that needs to be questioned in cases like this: that the cops are always the ones telling the truth when shit goes wrong. If Mrs. Hooks is, indeed, telling the truth about how it went down, then the cops involved have a clear motivation to lie.
There are times when it might make sense to assume that the cops are the ones we should believe, but a bunch of cops who wanted a warrant for a late-night search based on the lies of a meth-carrying thief who had actually stolen from the very person he was incriminating are not the sort of law-enforcement officers who inspire a lot of confidence.
Ask the guy who posted the original link, conveniently forgetting to mention that he was only providing one side of the story.
Exactly.
This, by the way, is a perfect argument for making ALL cops wear body cameras. They’ve started doing it in a bunch of commands here in San Diego, and they’re expanding the program. In an age when every second teenager carries around a hi-def camera in his or her smartphone, we should mandate that our law enforcement officers have one on during all encounters, especially ones like this where they go in with guns drawn.
If they have cameras on, we know what happened. They didn’t, so we now have only the word of multiple cops against a woman who saw her husband gunned down in front of her in his own home. And i don’t trust them enough not to lie if it’s in their own interests.
All states should pass laws requiring body cameras. Make police departments pay for it out of all that civil asset forfeiture money they steal.
The cops in my city (Laurel, MD) have started wearing lapel cameras in the last year. Heard a report on the news that since then, they’ve seen a 60% drop in complaints. I posted about my own bad brush with a Laurel PD officer a few weeks ago. There is little chance that shit would have happened if she knew she was being recorded, but if it did happen, I would feel that much more empowered to file a complaint because I would feel secure in the knowledge the tape would back me up. Currently all kinds of messed up interactions probably occur that never get reported because people assume the system will always take the word of a cop over theirs. Cameras even the playing field.
The more these stories get attention, the more pressure there will be for police to wear body cameras. I’m hoping that after a certain point, police departments will not be about to defend not having body cameras, because of the message that sends. Police reports consistently fail to tell the whole story or even truthful stories, which means they are increasingly becoming worthless in the court of public opinion. I welcome the day when we’re no longer stuck with just their biased accounts of what happened; we can just look at the tape and see for ourselves what went down.
Steophan, I don’t know how SWAT equivalent works in the UK, but SWAT does not knock and announce BEFORE entering a home (also, there may have been uniformed deputies on-site, but they wouldn’t be the ones to breach the house). Someone might or might not whisper “police”, or even say it in a normal tone of voice as they’re breaching a structure, but that’s if they care at all about whether it’s a no-knock warrant. You’ve been watching too much television, perhaps (unfortunately, television is from where most people learn about the law and so many other things). Whether the action is being filmed by the unit or beknownst to the unit will also affect decisions on protocol.
"Steophan: “It wasn’t a no-knock warrant, and the police announced themselves.”
Under the circumstances, I’d rather you say “according to the police department, [SWAT] announced themselves.” It’s best to be more circumspect.
“If the warrant isn’t valid, sue them and live comfortably for the rest of my life.”
This is yet another item that leads me to believe that you’re not well-informed about how the law works, particularly insofar as law enforcement actions are concerned. Most people make declarations based on what they’re convinced they know, or at least how things should be, and that’s unfortunately normal.*
A warrant not being “valid” (whatever that means to you) doesn’t give rise to a viable lawsuit … not in the legal system as is. If SWAT is called to your home in the U.S. based on bogus or unreliable information due to the fact that law enforcement chose not to actually commence an investigation, a person will learn the hard way that they have no legal obligation to investigate (they are free, as here, to act on assertions of someone the police had arrested a few hours before for stealing from the person who would up dead). Of course, if such an assertion were made by a meth addict who’d stolen a prosecutor, judge or cop’s SUV or broken into such a person’s house, you can bet your ass that no one would sign off on a raid. 
So whatever dreams one may have of “liv[ing] comfortably for the rest of [his/her] life”, please understand that the person’d be better off spending a lot of dough on buying lottery tickets.
- On another board, some dude who just got fired in Texas was railing on about his rights to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” which, I gather to him, also meant that his employer wasn’t entitled to fire him based on “right to work”. He didn’t understand that this meant he couldn’t be forced to join a union, not that he had some constitutional right to a job. He, like most Americans, don’t understand that the Declaration of Independence from England was one thing, and the Constitution quite another.
As you may know from my previous posts in other threads, I am not anti-cop. Perhaps that’s a bit of an understatement. Anyway, here’s they type of story that is embarrassing for those wear a badge with honor. I have absolutely no time for crooked cops or those that abuse their authority. I’m am just making the point that I am well aware that there are problem cops and don’t defend them all reflexively. I would only ask that the anti-cop people not reflexively assume that the cops are always wrong.
Odd that you’d then link to a story about a cop stealing.