# Yet another SWAT raid death and no charges filed **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [January 20, 2011, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-swat-raid-death-and-no-charges-filed/568278 "2011-01-20T02:57:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 24
**Author:** ![Enderw24](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ba9def/32.png) [@Enderw24](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enderw24)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2011, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-swat-raid-death-and-no-charges-filed/568278/461 "2011-02-11T16:25:28Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > In your little liberal heart of hearts, you don’t really regard Blair’s drug use or selling as a real crime, So you frantically look for ways to forget it, or minimize it, in this discussion. But you readily accept drunk driving as a crime, and so you don’t object when then drunk driver’s death is leavened with discussions about how his drunkeness might be relevant to his death… even if the particular acciddent in which he died was not his fault. > > How close am I? Really really far off. I mean, god, that’s just a terrible analogy. The entire point here is that Blair’s drug use had absolutely nothing to do with why the police were there or why he got shot. None. At all. I suppose if the warrant had been made out so that they were looking for Blair and he got shot in the confusion trying to defend his home against unknown intruders and you said “well gosh, if only he hadn’t been so sinful this never would have happened tsk tsk tsk.” I’d roll my eyes quite a bit, but at least you’d have a point. Blair’s drug use would at least have been the reason they were there. Here? in this case? It makes fuck all difference. Getting killed while drunk driving is a direct consequence of driving drunk unlike the scenario we’re discussing. So let’s try for a better analogy on your drunk driving scenario. Guy is a raging alcoholic. Drinking morning noon and night. One night, guy drives drunk to a convenience store to pick up another six pack. He makes it there safely. He’s in line to make his purchase and the guy in front of him pulls a gun to rob the store. Unknown to him, the guy behind him is an off duty police officer and pulls his own gun yelling “POLICE! DOWN ON THE GROUND!” Our hero spins around at the noise, thinking it’s another robber. In the confusion, he didn’t hear “police!” The cop sees him moving, thinks he’s a second robber, thinks the metallic six pack is, I dunno, a samurai sword. He shoots our hero dead. Should the guy not have driven drunk? You betcha. Would it have been nice had he lived clean and sober and in perfect compliance to all laws all the time? Would that he could. Does any of that have fuck all to do with why he got shot by a trigger happy cop or my views on the dead guy as a human being? Not really. ---
**Author:** ![CannyDan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cannydan/32/548_2.png) [@CannyDan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CannyDan)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2011, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-swat-raid-death-and-no-charges-filed/568278/462 "2011-02-11T16:38:36Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Then you didn’t read any of the cites offered up earlier in the thread. Sure I did. When did “hearing” about something become evidence? Basis for investigation, yes; evidence, no. And even if we credit this at face value, that merely makes him a consumer, not a dealer, in drugs. > [@Bricker](#): > > How does that follow? Why would drug dealers permit people " only tangentially related to the criminal enterprise" to roam around? Maybe “drug dealers” conjures up some other image in your mind, but to me, drug dealers are actually people. Even hard core, big time, multi-million dollar dealers, let alone petty street dealers, have families and friends who often are no more than “tangentially related to the criminal enterprise”. The idea that they wall themselves off and have no congress with people outside of their fellow traffickers comes from movies. Regardless, this handwaving is only a distraction from the question I posed: How does this life style choice or series of choices rise to the level at which death by agent of the state is an acceptable outcome? ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2011, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-swat-raid-death-and-no-charges-filed/568278/463 "2011-02-11T16:41:00Z")
Ender, that’s a terrible analogy. The police were there because he allowed a dealer to live in his home, and operate out of his house. The police were investigating that dealer, and served the warrant in support of that investigation. Your analogy suggests that while he did drugs, he didn’t know anything about her drug dealing, which is almost certainly not the case. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2011, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-swat-raid-death-and-no-charges-filed/568278/464 "2011-02-11T16:46:09Z")
> [@CannyDan](#): > > Sure I did. When did “hearing” about something become evidence? Basis for investigation, yes; evidence, no. And even if we credit this at face value, that merely makes him a consumer, not a dealer, in drugs. What do you think “evidence” is? > [@](#): > > Regardless, this handwaving is only a distraction from the question I posed: How does this life style choice or series of choices rise to the level at which death by agent of the state is an acceptable outcome? _sigh_ Yes, I said the death was acceptable. I gloried in the death. Death, death, death. It is to laugh, at the deathiness. ---
**Author:** ![CannyDan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cannydan/32/548_2.png) [@CannyDan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CannyDan)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2011, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-swat-raid-death-and-no-charges-filed/568278/465 "2011-02-11T17:30:55Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > What do you think “evidence” is? What do you think “dealer” is? > [@Bricker](#): > > _sigh_ > > Yes, I said the death was acceptable. I gloried in the death. Death, death, death. It is to laugh, at the deathiness. I won’t bother to discuss your construct of straw. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2011, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-swat-raid-death-and-no-charges-filed/568278/466 "2011-02-11T17:35:29Z")
> [@CannyDan](#): > > What do you think “dealer” is? A buyer, seller, or trader of goods. > [@](#): > > I won’t bother to discuss your construct of straw. The straw didn’t seem to bother you when you were building your strawman of me. ---
**Author:** ![Enderw24](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ba9def/32.png) [@Enderw24](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enderw24)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2011, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-swat-raid-death-and-no-charges-filed/568278/467 "2011-02-11T19:28:45Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > Ender, that’s a terrible analogy. The police were there because he allowed a dealer to live in his home, and operate out of his house. The police were investigating that dealer, and served the warrant in support of that investigation. Your analogy suggests that while he did drugs, he didn’t know anything about her drug dealing, which is almost certainly not the case. Well it’s certainly better than the assumption than, because this guy may have partaken in an illegal substance at some point in his life, he should have expected to get gunned down in his own home. Oh and the only reason I could possibly be on his side is because I’m a dirty smelly hippy who thinks drug laws are for squares. Not, you know, because he didn’t do anything wrong the night he got gunned down. May he who is without sin fire the first three rounds and then yell to stay on the ground. [sub]This strawman brought to you by Frank Baum and the letter “L”[/sub] ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2011, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-swat-raid-death-and-no-charges-filed/568278/468 "2011-02-11T21:37:20Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Does this kind of use of _reductio ad absurdum_ work in your real-life discussions? Do your friends hear you say this kind of thing and think, “Wow, good point?” Please, you’re hardly in a position to try to score points by naming fallacies. Your argument consists of a hasty generalization, with entanglements of confusing correlation with causation. > [@](#): > > The answer is that there’s a close nexus between drug dealing and the presence of guns, and a cost and risk benefit analysis in the sorts of countermeasures that are used. Obviously that equation will change based on the weight assigned to the various factors in play, but in this country, today, the use of a no-knock warrant in the circumstances of this case is unremarkable. The decision to use a tank to enter the home would be, conversely, quite remarkable. Well, [Los Angeles gave it a shot in 1986](http://framework.latimes.com/2010/10/26/lapd-battering-ram/). Admittedly, it was a six-ton modified armored personel carrier rather than a tank, though that term was frequently if inaccurately used in the media at the time. So what was the risk-benefit analysis in this case? Beyond a generic “they’re drug dealers and might have guns”, was there anything specific about this case that suggested danger? You’re _assuming_ the police ran an “equation” based on “factors”, so what are they? Did Blair have a violent record? Did his former roommate have one? Were they major players in the local drug scene? I’d consider this barely-minimal information for police to have if they truly had been investigating the house and its residents for weeks beforehand, as claimed, and so far I haevn’t seen anything along those lines. Unless you can establish a compelling set of criteria beyond “drug dealers = guns, QED”, your argument is simply not sufficient and in fact invites these kinds of raids (and the attendant risks) on whomever the police feel like. In anticipation of you calling this a “liberal heart of hearts” knee-jerk reaction based on distrust of the police, I’ll just point out that checks on state power are indeed required and demanding that police be very selective in how they apply deadly force or the risk of deadly force is entirely reasonable. > [@](#): > > So why don’t we use tanks? Because no one who is responsible for the cost and risk benefit analysis believes that’s appropriate. Why DO we routinely issue no-knock warrants and serve them with an armed SWAT team? Because almost everyone who is responsible for the cost and risk benefit analysis believes that’s appropriate. A tad circular, isn’t it? We trust the people serving the warrants that the warrants are a good idea? Okay, let them get their warrants, with the understanding that they will be held accountable when things go wrong. That is, they _should_ be held accountable. I’ve less confidence that will happen in this case, and it wouldn’t even be subject to _this_ much analysis without the videotape of what is clearly a premature shoot (though, apparently, legally justifiable, which to me raises questions about the qualifty of the law if it is satisfied by results like this) leading me to question about the quality of training for that officer and indeed for the department’s “Narcotics Strike Force” in general. > [@](#): > > Your complaint amounts to the fact that you don’t agree. Heh, yes, this latest attempt at dismissal is noted, but a far more accurate phrasing is “Your argument amounts to the fact that you don’t agree based on the various and numerous reasons you have described in detail, which **I** am disregarding because **I** don’t agree.” > [@](#): > > That’s great. But you’re not the person elected to lead jurisdictions by crafting policy to implement the law. Oddly enough, in general, the people that ARE elected don’t agree with you. You’re calling my qualifications into question, now? Please establish your own, first. When, if ever, did you hold elected office? When were you in a position to craft these kinds of policies or implement them? And if you were, does this result (i.e. a man shot in his house while holding a golf club) strike you as an effective application of those policies? If so, I eagerly invite you to share your knowledge and experience with us, or perhaps you already have and I missed it. And for a guy eager to point out perceived logical fallasies in others, this last paragraph of yours has at least two in it. Shall I patronize you by naming them, or are they obvious enough? ---
**Author:** ![CannyDan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cannydan/32/548_2.png) [@CannyDan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CannyDan)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2011, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-swat-raid-death-and-no-charges-filed/568278/469 "2011-02-12T16:18:29Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > A buyer, seller, or trader of goods. > > The straw didn’t seem to bother you when you were building your strawman of me. Yes counselor, I am sure you can offer a citation at law where a simple consumer equates to a quote dealer unquote. But in the present context, wherein some nefarious life style rose to a level of significant danger to the police such that a no-knock warrant was appropriate, the term is such a stretch as to be ridiculous. This wasn’t quite the leader of the Cocaine Cowboy Army here. “Drug dealer” is to laugh. Further, I hardly created any fictitious target out of your posts. I said that you “accept” this outcome and indeed you do. Oh, you offered your opinion that it was unfortunate, even regrettable, and perhaps worthy of administrative punishment. But you do so cryptically, almost as an aside. Those statements are easy to overlook, buried as they are amongst your legal picking of nits. Us namby pamby liberals, on the other hand, are outraged at this outcome. We see the horrible and unnecessary death of an individual at the hands of the state; an individual whose actions, even whose putative but unproven crimes, could not by any stretch be viewed as capital offenses. We are infuriated, and decry the outcome. You on the other hand do indeed “accept” that outcome, as a direct consequence of the laws and systems in place. Maybe it’s simply a matter of personal style, and your heart is actually in the right place. And so I/we (since I’ve previously been named as the archetype liberal) understand, thanks to your explanations and citations, how the legal circumstances have come to be and how they support the outcome. But we do not accept that this outcome properly serves our society. And so we cry out for some change, some modification of the law, or some reinterpretation of the application of present law, that would bring about a different result. No, we are not legislators; we are merely participants on an internet message board. We have no power, but the power to entertain and inform each other. Still, it strikes me that your research abilities and your keen legal mind could do more than interpret the law for us. For if indeed you are to be taken at your word (guarded and isolated as it is) that you believe this result to be at least regrettable, your attention could be amplified toward helping us to identify, not simply what the law is now, but how it might be changed to produce outcomes more beneficial to our society than the ones that presently obtain. I believe that would result in a more informative, and perhaps also more entertaining, discussion. But YMMV. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2011, 3:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-swat-raid-death-and-no-charges-filed/568278/470 "2011-02-14T03:53:40Z")
I’m calling this my second victory over Bricker, the first stemming from that ridiculous self-defeat he gave himself after offering up a particularly specious rationalization to oppose gay marriage. ---
**Author:** ![Skip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ebca7d/32.png) [@Skip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skip)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2011, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-swat-raid-death-and-no-charges-filed/568278/471 "2011-02-14T15:03:28Z")
That liberal rag Reason has been publishing [a bunch of articles](http://reason.com/topics/militarization-of-police) on the increasing usage of the police as a military force - it is a war on drugs after all - and the alarming number of complete botches that have occurred. The Cato Institute, another commie pinko organisation if ever there was one, has an [interactive map of botched raids](http://www.cato.org/raidmap/) from 1985-2010 in the US which is both enlightening and frightening. This killing is not an isolated incident. The militarisation of the police into a de-facto standing army with assault weapons, tanks and body armour should be a big concern for political conservatives, Constitution lovers that they are. Also the idea that the decision to use a SWAT team is only made out of some cost benefit analysis is also hilarious. Once a department has a SWAT team that SWAT team **will** be used to justify it’s budget. It doesn’t matter if the actual circumstances require it. Need to raid a poker game? [Call in SWAT!](http://reason.com/blog/2010/11/05/poker-raid-turns-into-gunfight) What police chief would voluntarily give away his shiny new toys? As the saying goes when all you have is a hammer, everything begins to look like a nail. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2011, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-swat-raid-death-and-no-charges-filed/568278/472 "2011-02-14T15:27:17Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > I’m calling this my second victory over Bricker, the first stemming from that ridiculous self-defeat he gave himself after offering up a particularly specious rationalization to oppose gay marriage. Um… what?!? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2011, 6:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-swat-raid-death-and-no-charges-filed/568278/473 "2011-02-16T06:42:26Z")
As I recall, it was the rather comical idea that someone could vote against gay marriage but not actually be _opposed_ to gay marriage if he reasoned that he would support the majority vote on the issue. Trouble is, the more rational policy in such a case is to simply not vote at all and just passively let the majority carry the issue. After all, not voting accomplishes this end, while casting a vote result in: [ul][li]The voter correctly guesses the majority position and votes with it - no net effect except wasted effort.[/li][li]The voter incorrectly guesses the majority position and votes against it - defeating his intended purpose.[/ul][/li]I’m sure you’ll claim there are some subtleties I’ve overlooked, but no amount of lipstick will make that pig a prom queen. And in the case of this thread, that “little liberal heart of hearts” business was quite blatantly an attempt to antagonize me, after all your other ammunition proved useless. I may be “liberal” by American standards, but those are not the _only_ standards, and the disingenuous appeal that I reveal my “hearts of hearts” implied I was arguing dishonestly. Pathetic. I’ve no need to argue this or any issue dishonestly. Did you seriously think I would lash out at you in a manner that would give you cause to cluck your tongue at the irrationality of the silly little liberal? Dream on. Your arguments simply aren’t that good. However, I do commend you for not attempting to make hay from the numerous typographical and grammatical errors in some of my earlier posts. Bravo. ---
**Author:** ![Skip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ebca7d/32.png) [@Skip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skip)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2011, 12:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-swat-raid-death-and-no-charges-filed/568278/474 "2011-02-16T12:20:14Z")
The entire point of a SWAT raid is to cause as much confusion and disorientation as possible so that those being raided are unable to escape or dispose of evidence. Of course when things go wrong the police will then claim that the victim should have responded immediately to commands and that any wrongdoing on their part is therefore justified. From [this article](http://reason.com/archives/2009/07/13/swat-gone-wild-in-maryland/): > [@](#): > > In January 2005, police in Baltimore County conducted a 4:50 a.m. raid on the home of Cheryl Lynn and Charles Noel after finding marijuana seeds and cocaine residue in the family’s trash. After taking down the front door and deploying a flash grenade, SWAT officers stormed up the steps and broke open the door to the Noels’ bedroom. Because their daughter had been murdered several years earlier, the couple kept a gun near the bed. When the police entered the bedroom, 44-year-old Cheryl Lynn Noel stood with the gun, clad in her nightgown. She was shot and killed by an armor-wearing SWAT officer, who fired from behind a ballistics shield. Police found only a misdemeanor amount of illicit drugs in the home. Shortly after the family filed a civil rights lawsuit in 2006, Baltimore County gave the officer who shot Noel an award for “valor, courage, honor, and bravery.” > > In March, a federal jury returned a verdict in favor of the police. The winning argument in the Noel case is a common one—but it’s also paradoxical. Police argued both that these volatile, confrontational tactics are necessary to surprise drug suspects—to take them off guard before they have a chance to retaliate, or dispose of the contraband. At the same time, police argued that Cheryl Lynn Noel should have known the armed men storming her home at 5 a.m. were police; therefore she had no right to be holding a gun, and the police had every right to shoot her. Unfortunately, under the law the jury (and the police) was probably correct. The police didn’t appear to violate any department policy. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2011, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-swat-raid-death-and-no-charges-filed/568278/475 "2011-02-16T14:13:18Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > As I recall, it was the rather comical idea that someone could vote against gay marriage but not actually be _opposed_ to gay marriage if he reasoned that he would support the majority vote on the issue. Trouble is, the more rational policy in such a case is to simply not vote at all and just passively let the majority carry the issue. After all, not voting accomplishes this end, while casting a vote result in: > [ul][li]The voter correctly guesses the majority position and votes with it - no net effect except wasted effort.[/li][li]The voter incorrectly guesses the majority position and votes against it - defeating his intended purpose.[/ul][/li]I’m sure you’ll claim there are some subtleties I’ve overlooked, but no amount of lipstick will make that pig a prom queen. If voting were the only method of divining the majority position, then you’d have a point. Our hypothetical voter could rely on polling data to ascertain the majority position, and have much less of the “shot-in-the-dark” approach you posit. > [@](#): > > And in the case of this thread, that “little liberal heart of hearts” business was quite blatantly an attempt to antagonize me, after all your other ammunition proved useless. I may be “liberal” by American standards, but those are not the _only_ standards, and the disingenuous appeal that I reveal my “hearts of hearts” implied I was arguing dishonestly. Pathetic. I’ve no need to argue this or any issue dishonestly. No need to imagine you were arguing dishonestly in order to speculate that you had feelings about drug laws that guided your feelings about this case. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2011, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-swat-raid-death-and-no-charges-filed/568278/476 "2011-02-16T21:51:41Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > If voting were the only method of divining the majority position, then you’d have a point. > > Our hypothetical voter could rely on polling data to ascertain the majority position, and have much less of the “shot-in-the-dark” approach you posit. Heh, yes… and Dewey defeated Truman. Even if the voter has reliable polling data, his voting with the majority doesn’t make them any “majority-er”, and ultimately, yes, voting _will_ divine the majority position, or at least it’s the only method that will actually (literally) count. There simply isn’t any reason for your hypothetical voter to take a shot at _all_, regardless of the light level. If he hits, it means nothing, and he risks missing. > [@](#): > > No need to imagine you were arguing dishonestly in order to speculate that you had feelings about drug laws that guided your feelings about this case. Your reason for imagining such is, if I may speculate, an attempt to find some way to refute the arguments I’ve already made that have nothing to do with drug laws, and everything to do with police gunning people down in their own homes. Think of a crime involving non-drug contraband that the police might serve a warrant for. Maybe they believe the people in the house are fencing stolen televisions, or poached endangered animal parts like ivory, or are producing knockoff DVDs… _some_ of the people in these businesses do indeed pack heat, but there’s no evidence I’m aware of that these specific people do, so it’s unclear to me that the police need a full on no-knock raid, and even less clear that they need to open fire without making sure the surprised resident knows who they are or has been given a chance to comply. My concern is not with coddling criminals or legalizing drugs, but putting limits on police recklessness. Am I being dishonest? Unless _you_ are, you’ll admit that I’m not. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2011, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-swat-raid-death-and-no-charges-filed/568278/477 "2011-02-16T23:25:15Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > My concern is not with coddling criminals or legalizing drugs, but putting limits on police recklessness. > > Am I being dishonest? Unless _you_ are, you’ll admit that I’m not. Absolutely. I think you’re genuinely concerned about police recklessness. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2011, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-swat-raid-death-and-no-charges-filed/568278/478 "2011-02-17T00:23:42Z")
I’m not certain if that was intended as an apology/retraction/admission, but I will take it as such and assume the claim of dishonesty is withdrawn. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2011, 12:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-swat-raid-death-and-no-charges-filed/568278/479 "2011-02-17T12:37:52Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > I’m not certain if that was intended as an apology/retraction/admission, but I will take it as such and assume the claim of dishonesty is withdrawn. As well you should, because I hate the weaselly non-apology apology and didn’t intend to make one myself. The only reason that what I said above lacked force is that I didn’t intend to say or imply originially that you were being dishonest – just wondering if your underlying feelings towards the seriousness of the particular crime laws being enforced informed your attitude. That’s not lying – that’s part of how people form opinions. It’s true that I wasn’t polite about it, but the Pit’s seductive in that regard. So to be utterly clear: I don’t claim, or believe, you’re being in any way dishonest and to the extent I said or implied otherwise, I apologize. ---
**Author:** ![Digital\_Stimulus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@Digital\_Stimulus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Digital_Stimulus)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2011, 1:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-swat-raid-death-and-no-charges-filed/568278/480 "2011-03-25T13:08:01Z")
I saw this on the news last night and thought of this thread. As I recall it, there was a question of whether home invaders ever attempt to pass themselves off as police. From yesterday in Missouri City, TX, we have an [example of exactly that](http://www.khou.com/home/Alleged-police-impersonators-suspected-in-Missouri-City-home-invasion-118569554.html). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-swat-raid-death-and-no-charges-filed/568278.md?page=23) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-another-swat-raid-death-and-no-charges-filed/568278.md?page=25)