Quoted:
I don't understand why this story made the news.
These Police Officers did nothing wrong according to the story.

They had reasonable suspicion to search the house, they are looking for armed and dangerous suspects involved in a shooting, hence why there weapons were unholstered.

Handcuffing the boyfriend is no big deal, you don't have to arrest someone in order to cuff them. It was a safety issue.

I don't see the problem with this, so what the suspects weren't there. No one was injured, there was no property damaged by the police.

God, I hope you are not a LEO.

Quoted:
"We're sorry that it turned out that they were shaken up, but they should understand the circumstances," he said.

The family said officers did not tell them why they were there and what they were looking for until after deputies realized they had raided the wrong house.

.

Quoted:
Cops are mammals, mammals make mistakes sometimes.  At least nobody got shot.  Same thing happened here one time, because they were looking for house #1289, but knocked down the door of #1286, because the numbers were staggered at a downward angle and the 6 was loose, so it dangled down and looked like a 9. [grenade]

Quoted:



Mock my words -

One of these days, one of these no-knocks on the wrong house are gonna end in a gun battle between police, and some law abiding citizen who is scared out of his mind by a home invasion, and tries to defend himself from armed "thugs" breaking into his house late at nite.

I've "done the math" in my house. My Sig sits on my nite stand, ready to rock and roll.

If they broke into my house, I can EASILY envision a "worst case scenario" happenning. And I'd prolly end up dead.

That's what happens when the "protect and serve" folks become SWAT teams.

Quoted:
...Mock my words -

One of these days, one of these no-knocks on the wrong house are gonna end in a gun battle between police, and some law abiding citizen who is scared out of his mind by a home invasion, and tries to defend himself from armed "thugs" breaking into his house late at nite.

I've "done the math" in my house. My Sig sits on my nite stand, ready to rock and roll.

If they broke into my house, I can EASILY envision a "worst case scenario" happenning. And I'd prolly end up dead.

That's what happens when the "protect and serve" folks become SWAT teams.

Quoted:
I've "done the math" in my house. My Sig sits on my nite stand, ready to rock and roll.

If they broke into my house, I can EASILY envision a "worst case scenario" happenning. And I'd prolly end up dead.

That's what happens when the "protect and serve" folks become SWAT teams.

Quoted:
and there is the fact that if anyone of us were to make a similar mistake, it would at the very least be a felony with jail time, if not death sentence, while the law enforcement (on every level) gets rarely more than a reprimand.

Quoted:

Why don't you out of touch, misinformed cop haters go down to your local police department and ask to do a citizens' ride along (if your town has it)?  

"At least nobody got shot"

Quoted:
Garandman,

Actually, the no-knock gun battle you mentioned has happened.....here in Arkansas actually.  ATF and local authorities suspected a felon was in possession of a >gasp< Win. 30-30 in his home.  Raided the house in the middle of the night, suspect shot and killed.  His wife and maybe some children (don't recall) were also in the home asleep at the time of the raid.  


Sam

Quoted:
"Did you guys know that the EPA has a bunch of SWAT teams? WTF does the EPA need even ONE SWAT team. I read somewhere that there are now over 25,000 separate SWAT teams in the US alone.
To me, that constitutes a standing army, pointed directly at US citizens."

I have read somewhere that the IRS has a SWAT team, the US Forest Service has one.  Durn near every government agency has one.

Quoted:
Realistically, though, I probably would not wake up fast enough, and someone would shoot in bed because I made a "sudden movement" upon waking.  Cynical?  Me?  Nooooooooooooo.

When San Francisco police said they couldn't spare an officer to arrest a man suspected of stealing Tom Van Lokeren's credit cards and checks, the 47-year-old North Beach tax accountant took matters into his own hands.

Van Lokeren bought a large fishing net at Fisherman's Wharf, some pepper spray and a stun gun at a military surplus store and then lured the suspect into a trap on a busy downtown street.

"I made four attempts to get the police to do their job," said Van Lokeren. "I said, 'Well, I'm going to go ahead with this,' and they said, 'Good luck.' "

On May 30, Lokeren and his nephew used the stun gun and pepper spray to ambush and arrest James Timothy Stevens -- but not without a struggle and foot chase down Mission Street.

"I ran up after him, and I stunned him on the shoulder, then I used the pepper spray," Van Lokeren said. "In all the ruckus, I ended up dropping the net. I never used it."

The incident left both Van Lokeren and San Francisco police officials shaking their heads in disbelief -- for different reasons.

Van Lokeren is upset that police at Central Station merely wrote up a report on the thefts and refused to go out and arrest Stevens. Fraud Detail inspectors wouldn't help either, he said.

"I served this guy up on a silver platter for these guys," Van Lokeren said of the police. "They are just so jaded and desensitized to crime."

A nephew, Paul Van Lokeren, assisted in the arrest and expressed dismay at the lack of police help, saying: "They are basically just report-takers. They are secretaries with guns."

Central Station Capt. James L. Dudley, whose officers took Van Lokeren's report and refused to assist in the arrest, said he understands their frustration.

He was unaware of Van Lokeren's repeated requests for assistance, Dudley said, but his officers are constantly busy responding to calls that often involve emergencies and violent crime. Setting up a stakeout for a suspect in a property crime case is not something the SFPD usually can do.

"It's not a life-threatening situation," the captain said.

Van Lokeren and his nephew made a mistake, turning a property crime into a potentially violent confrontation, he said.

"You don't put yourself in harm's way because you don't like the way the police handled it. What if this guy did have a gun -- and you only have net," Dudley said. "We certainly don't encourage the public to make their own arrest.

That's our job."

Quoted:


Why don't you out of touch, misinformed cop haters go down to your local police department and ask to do a citizens' ride along (if your town has it)?  Also ask to ride at night in a bad neighborhood.  After you have done that, AND ONLY THEN, come back and let's see if your opinion has changed just a tad bit.

Quoted:
I don't understand why this story made the news.
These Police Officers did nothing wrong according to the story.

They had reasonable suspicion to search the house, they are looking for armed and dangerous suspects involved in a shooting, hence why there weapons were unholstered.

Handcuffing the boyfriend is no big deal, you don't have to arrest someone in order to cuff them. It was a safety issue.

I don't see the problem with this, so what the suspects weren't there. No one was injured, there was no property damaged by the police.

Quoted:
I have read somewhere that the IRS has a SWAT team, the US Forest Service has one.  Durn near every government agency has one.

Quoted:
viva la resistance

Quoted:
Cops are mammals, mammals make mistakes sometimes.  At least nobody got shot.  Same thing happened here one time, because they were looking for house #1289, but knocked down the door of #1286, because the numbers were staggered at a downward angle and the 6 was loose, so it dangled down and looked like a 9. [grenade]

Quoted:
I think everyone needs to go on a pick up for dangerous wanted person. The L.E.O. can wait in the car while you go knocking on doors![;D] Take a walk in the shoes boys!

Quoted:
First of all, yeah I am an LEO. Secondly if the event went down EXACTLY as the story says then yes the Sheriff's Deputies were wrong.
But I highly doubt it did, why?

1.I can almost guarantee that they were given consent to search the premise. Because just seeing a similar car as one used is not enough to search a house without a warrant, even the dumbest of cops know that, and do not violate it.


2.They made them wait outside, and cuffed the boyfriend for THEIR safety, how did they know the boyfriend wasn't one of the suspects? And you cannot have innocent people in a premise when you are looking for bad guys.

3.As far as the deputy holding a gun to his mother, I seriously doubt he was doing anything but searching with his weapon at the low ready position, which is warranted if your searching for armed and dangerous suspects.


Here is probably what really happened, Deputies spot a car while on patrol that is similar to the one used in a shooting earlier. They get a few officers to show up for backup, knock on the door and ask the occupants for permission to search the premise, permission is given and the deputies ask everyone to exit the building, upon exit they see a young male who could possibly fit the description of one of the perps and they cuff him for safety reasons while they search the house. Now that all innocents are clear they unholster their weapons and do a tactically sound search of the premises. They occupants get disgruntled after neighbors start showing up to see what is going on and after the police leave they all start talking about how they hate police etc etc. and decide to call the media  and report the horrible brute cops,
and embellish a little for effect.


But again if these Deputies went into this house by force, without a warrant, and physically aimed a weapon at an innocent female whom the Deputy KNEW was innocent, then they should be charged with violation of the 4th Amendment.