You need something that will yaw or fragment quickly, as you don’t get as much flesh to penetrate. Although just about anything will be pretty effective given the chance of a hit hitting the central nervous system or a big artery.
I’m happy to share the information, though - me and my gun nut friends often stay up until the middle of the night discussing how best to turn toddlers into goo.
Well, hell, if they wanted to, bad guys could set up flashing lights outside, and even a recording of a siren. There is no completely unambiguous sign. Anything the cops can do, the criminals can do, too. Badges and uniforms can be faked.
Sure, there may be a few instances where bad guys have pretended to be cops to gain entrance to a home or catch the occupants off guard, but the tiny number of instances of that happening is not justification for shooting first and asking questions later.
Yes, they do want to make it threatening. They hope to catch everyone off guard and overwhelm them with efficient speed and superior numbers. If nothing else, this incident shows that “sweet little old ladies” can be packing heat and be just as deadly as a street thug. Cops can’t afford to be “gentle.”
While what you say is technically true, it’s not practically true. People conducting a home invasion want to be as discreet as practical - they’re not going to dress a few squad cars up, and come flying down the street, sirens blazing, attracting all that attention. However, yelling “POLICE!”, while not exactly silent, is much more subtle than a siren and lights.
That cops will wear “street clothes” or even all black super cool ninja clothes just makes it harder to identify them.
The situation should rarely, if ever, come to pass, that it takes subtle discrimination to determine a cop from a home invader.
If you’ve committed a crime, and know you might be caught, that seems reasonable. But what if you’ve never broken a law in your life more serious than speeding? Should you think it’s equally likely the police are breaking down your door as a bad guy?
This doesn’t even address the fact that people can be half-awake, or acoustically seperated from the outside, or whatever - resulting in “police!” either not being heard, or just sounding like crazed yelling. A siren and lights are far, far less ambiguous.
This starts to feel like circular reasoning to me. The cops bust in in an aggressive, secretive, threatning manner, and got shot at, therefore they were justified in doing so, and in the future, have to use even a more aggressive, threatning manner…
You’re right-- criminals aren’t as sophisticated as the police. Taking that further, how likely is it that a band of criminals would all be dressed the same, wearing bullet-proof vests and enter the house in the organized pattern that police do? Criminals may say “Police” in order to throw the occupants off guard, but it’s highly unlikely they’ll have the funds or ambition to actually costume and conduct themselves like cops.
I consider it a matter of statistics. I have never once heard of a violent home invasion in my city in which the criminals pretended to be police. (Actually, the home invasion part is so rare that I can only think of one or two examples.) So, yes, if my door gets kicked in, it’s very likely that it’s the police even though I’m a law-abiding girl. (They must just be at the wrong house.)
Yeah, it may *possibly *help, but if you’re in a back bedroom or in a room with thick walls and covered-up windows, the siren and the lights won’t do any good.
But, hey, I’d be all for it if they could time it so that the lights and siren went off when they entered the house. If it keeps any officers from getting accidentally killed, it’d be a Good Thing. However, I think we’d find that the number of “accidental” shootings wouldn’t decrease by much.
They’re not exactly working with the nicest people in the world. Most of the time when they bust into a house, there’s a criminal inside and that criminal may be violent. It seems logical to me that the cops would go in aggressively rather than go in “nicely” on the off-chance that the person inside may be a “sweet little old lady.”
Going in “gently” gives the criminals time to destroy evidence, take a hostage, escape, commit suicide or grab a weapon. Police don’t go in aggressively because it’s more fun that way-- they do it because experience and study has shown that it’s the most effective technique for catching the criminals off guard and it’s the safest way to do it.
Just saw this on CNN.com
So, it appears that they weren’t ambiguiously dressed after all.
Didn’t the bother to see who owned the house and realize a 92 year old woman lived there? They had to get a search warrant and should have known who owned the house and realized at 7:00 she’d probably be there.
They could have called her on the phone and see if she’d answer. If they talked to one neighbor they would have told them that people in the area didn’t answer the door, that you’d have to call her first.
I wholeheartedly congratulate you- you’re in exactly the right thread-surrounded by folks who believe exactly what you do.
Have a nice day.
Cop out.
No big deal, though - no one really needs to respond and break apart your posts for people to get “WTF? Crazy” out of your posts.
A property record search (free & public at the local library) would have shown the current owner. Why would they expect that the dude selling drugs there earlier would still be in the same place? Why didn’t they have someone watching the house so that the SWAT team would know who was in the house? There could have easily been 10 jumpy armed guys as 1 jumpy old woman.
Am I alone in thinking that it’s somehow fitting someone with your username should post to this thread?
Nope.
Your sneaky step daughter looks like several armed men violently breaking into a house?
It is possible that that comment is referrring to post # 178.
And, other posts supporting that concept of home-defense.
Show of hands, who doubts that “drug evidence” will remain untainted? Who believes that the truth of the situation will come out in the end, even if it means that the old woman had nothing to do with drugs, and that she was caught snoozing in her chair with her weapon at her side- an understandable way of living, going by what our OP’er has shared about the neighborhood environment? It is the way of large police forces to do everything they can to protect their own, even when crimes have been committed and those responsible are hiding behind their shields.
While I was simply outraged at what catsix posted and my initial response was truly an angry one, it is inarguable that this particular Doper is not alone in this mindset or way of living. I apologize for taking her very personal way of living and attacking it. I might well have articulated my horror at the idea of killing anyone who does not have a key to the house in a slightly different way.
I may or may not find it reprehensible, but she has a right to do what she wants to do- right up to the moment when her actions may cost another their life. Then, as is the case in this very thread, the public at large is free to remark upon that lifestyle just as outside agencies would be within their rights to respond appropriately to her actions and use of force.
grayhairedmomma, yes it is called " good police work ". The same departments that pour millions into the fancy S.W.A.T. niinja-style black uniforms, trucks, battering rams, uniforms, high-powered automatic firearms and helicopters with HMI search lights are the ones who are capable of using infra-red scanning to ascertain how many warm bodies are in the house, where they are and if they are moving around.
And as you so wisely pointed out, they also have the technological capability of using the phone book, and dropping a quarter at the corner and making a call to the house. Having the technology, and having the brains to use it are two entirely different things.
Well, there you go. All this long thread about nothing. The way the police handled this was the safest way. Nobody got hurt. Chalk one up for the boys in blue. Stories over. Nothing to see here, folks.
Regarding shouting “police,” I recommend they designate just one guy to do the shouting. Six guys shouting “police” would make it awfully hard to understand what they were saying.
Loaded pistol within easy reach, yes.
Where I live, bucko, we only need a license to carry them concealed outside of the house. Pennsylvania doesn’t require licenses to own firearms, or to do what we want with them in our own homes.
Currently three adults, no minors, over fifty firearms, and I’d venture there are 6 to 10 fully loaded magazines at any given time.
They wouldn’t be immediately visible if you stood in the living room, dining room, or kitchen. Most of them are in the safe, to keep them safe from theft or fire. Those which are self-defense guns are out of sight, but not out of reach.
How much crack did you smoke before you posted this?
Thank you.
It’s been instilled in me since I was able to walk. I grew up with guns in plain sight all the time, and because of that I learned to be safe around them and not to fear them.
Where I live now the person without guns is the oddball.
You missed the part where I made a distinction between someone who uses keys and someone who breaks the door down, eh?
It’s a double-single. I don’t have to cock it.
Yes there was a round chambered, as their always is. I made a judgment in the situation at hand that I could get out of the situation unharmed with no shots fired, and I happened to be right. You weren’t there.
I heard the crackhead attempting to get through the door sometime around 2:30, 3:00 in the morning. I picked the pistol up from the desk next to me and sat on my coffee table, facing the foyer. I lived in a studio apartment at the time, so bear in mind there isn’t much option for me to hide and there’s only one way out. He wasn’t a very good burglar because I heard him coming a mile away, but if he gets inside he’s between me and the only door. He got into the foyer, an area about 4’x3’ and I could see his hands, which were empty. I could also see that he was doing the crack-addict head-bob, and that he had registered my presence, and the gun. I made a snap judgment that I could get Johnny Crackhead out of my apartment by pulling the hammer of my double action semi-auto back, and that if he instead took steps toward me, I still had time to fire. He chose to leave, and I chose not to fire at his back.
And you’d be amazed how much can go through your mind in under two seconds. The girl living across the hall, the door that probably wouldn’t stop a bullet, the notion that it was really better to get rid of the guy without firing a shot. Would I make the same decision again? I don’t know. The fact is, you don’t know what you’ll do until you’re there. You can have a pretty good idea of how you’ll react, but you don’t know for sure until it happens to you.
Well, I don’t live in the US any more and incidents like this are one of the reasons why. It seems that the “War on Drugs” has turned into a war on a substantial segment of the population. The police are put into the role of an occupying force by this situation and are treated as such by the population. Unsurprisingly, the cops respond poorly when treated like an enemy, and so it goes in a downward spiral.
Lissa Maybe it’s time for the police to re-think some of these no-knock tactics. In this case there is one dead and three injured for the sake of catching some guy selling narcotics. Many people are armed and would surely shoot someone breaking down their door. I’m with Catsix and some others on this. If I know it’s the police then all is OK. If someone suddenly kicks my door in I’m going to feel threatened and would most certainly shoot one or more of them.
Even assuming the guy was living in the house, grandma was aware of him dealing, and there was narcotics present. Was it worth it? And was there no better way of doing this? Hindsight is obviously 20/20 but why start with kicking down the door in a paramilitary-style assault? It seems like an incredibly abusive style of law enforcement and is dangerous for both the police and the (possible) criminals.
Regards
Testy
I wasn’t sure how to respond to this. You really need a loaded weapon within reach at all times? Maybe if you lived in Sadr City. I think someone needs to tell you this, you appear to be batshit crazy paranoid. Hopefully you are just overstating your point for effect. My guns are safely locked away. I don’t carry even though I can. I feel perfectly safe. The world is not out to get you unless you are doing something really wrong with your life.
One thing that appears to be lost in this thread. Does anyone think it is a good idea to arm 90 year olds? Anyone have any 90 year old relatives? I have 2 grandparents that reached over 90. I wouldn’t trust either of them with a pea-shooter. I don’t care how dangerous the neighborhood is, grandma with a gun is more dangerous.
Loach
I don’t know where Catsix lives but it hardly sounds like ritzy area. I don’t consider her paranoid at all. Why sould she put up with crackheads and the like burgling her place? As far as guns go, if they are purely for target shooting and hunting then I guess that’s fine to lock them up. If you seriously need a gun for self-defense, and it seems that Catsix does, then what good do they do you when they are “safely locked away?”
As far as the thing about arming nonagenarians, I certainly take your point. On the other hand, should we restrict them by law from owning firearms and thus make them a target? In my own opinion, I guess it depends on the 90 year old we’re talking about. It kind of kills the discussion, especially in the Pit, but, show me the 90 year old and then I’ll tell you.
Regards
Testy
The vast majority of times that this happens, no one is hurt. The reason why deaths get so much publicity is because they’re comparitively rare occurances during a raid. That doesn’t make them any less regretable, of course, but you don’t scrap a tacttic because something goes wrong a small percentage of the time.
If they hadn’t announced themselves ahead of time and given her a chance to arm herself, this would probably be a MPSIMS thread in which we were all laughing about a 92 year old granny busted for running a drug house.
You’ll get no argument from me. I think the drug war is stupid and costs way to much in lives and funds. However, it is currently the law of the land and cops are duty-bound to enforce it, and to do so, they’re going to use the techniques which have shown themselves to be the best. Yes, people are going to die, but I don’t blame the police for that. In this particular case, I blame the old woman.
Again, anyone who shoots without being sure of their target is an idiot. In this case, the police were all clearly marked as such in big letters on the front of their clothing. They had announced themselves before they kicked in the door (which, truthfully, is probably what got them shot-- it gave her time to grab for the gun.)
As I said, I’m no fan of the War on Drugs, but while it’s still the law, I"m not going to blame the police for enforcing it.
Again, in most cases, the tecnique works like a charm. They take all the occupants by surprise and subdue them immediately. It’s when the criminals have warning (like this old lady) when things can go bad-- they can grab a weapon, destory evidence, take a hostage, escape or even kill themselves. It’s more dangerous to give them time to think about it.
It’s not the police’s fault that granny decided to go out with guns blazing. If anything, the mistake they made was announcing themselves ahead of time when they had a no-knock warrant and could have just burst in, taking her by surprise. She is the one who decided to try to kill people without being sure of who they were. (Or, maybe she did know and she decided to try to kill the cops.)
No, not really. I’ve seen video of raids. It’s noisy, startling and overwhelming, but it’s not hard to understand. Even with the distortion in the audio on the videotape, I could still understand it.
With only one guy shouting it, it* increases* the chances that he couldn’t be heard because of the noise accompanying all of those stamping feet, the smashing of wood, etc.
raises hand
I do. I do not believe that the cops will tamper with the evidence. Given the huge amount of media attention and all of the watchdog groups which are focused on this event, I doubt if they could even if they wanted to.
Right now, those cops are under a microscope. The IAD is breathing down their necks, their service records are being scrutinized and the old woman’s family probably has a team of lawyers watching every single step of the investigation. Politicians are calling the department making demands and the chief is probably living on Excedrine and coffee.
The “blue wall” does exist, but it’s not what most people think that it is. It exists to cover for your partner if he’s late for work or if he has a drinking problem or if he forgot to turn in a form on time. They back one another up when they know that their partner didn’t do anything wrong and they try to present a united front.
However, cops don’t want to work with someone who’s dangerous. They won’t stick their necks out for someone who is doing things that are wrong because it puts them in danger, both physically and legally.
Lissa, bullshit.
I think Balko has a pretty good take on this:
http://www.theagitator.com/archives/027258.php#027258
His point is that, apparently, no matter what happens, the police are never to blame for the tactics, and all the mistakes are the fault of the person on the other side of the door. Simply put, that’s a ridiculous standard.
Again, I find the idea that I could intelligibly hear even someone shouting “POLICE” at the top of their lungs patently ridiculous: a loudspeaker might not even cut it, especially if I was asleep and it was what woke me to the sound of crashing noises.