SWAT invades innocent man's home - Burns it down with a flashbang - Father killed

[jsharmon7]

the, catch them somewhere else option is on the table too.

For arrest warrants, sure. Unless it's a high-risk warrant, that's how the vast majority of them go anyway. This was a search warrant where the guy was holed up in the house and wouldn't let the officers in. My question is what officers should do about that situation. The 4th Amendment gives the government the right to execute proper search warrants, it just doesn't say how.

 

[E5RANGER375]

For arrest warrants, sure. Unless it's a high-risk warrant, that's how the vast majority of them go anyway. This was a search warrant where the guy was holed up in the house and wouldn't let the officers in. My question is what officers should do about that situation. The 4th Amendment gives the government the right to execute proper search warrants, it just doesn't say how.

then maybe thats where we as citiznes need to step up and clarify the law. amend maybe? we must do something. when i see SWAT teams, I see armed soldiers on the streets. there is no difference in my mind. what would i do if armed soldiers came into my house forcefully? theres no discrimination here towards police, i assure you. it might break my heart but i would view the soldiers the same way, as a threat to my rights and freedom.

if the army was doing the same thing here in america, i would be raising the same hell I assure you. I saw the national guard do things in new orleans that were illegal and unconstitutional, and I spoke my mind then I assure you. i just wasnt a member of INGO back then.

 

[22lr]

give them the tools they need to stay safe. also give them backup. if you approach a car that has false plates or stolen, or a driver comes back with warrants then call for backup and dont approach until they arrive, and then if that guy trys to harm you then the guys watching your back can light that mother ****er up and kill his ass. I have no problem with police killing real bad guys who try to harm them. no problem at all. saves tax money too.
if we could stop having people sue the city for these stupid mistakes then we could afford to give more $$ to police for more backup and the best body armor and computers, etc. but there will always be a level of danger. its the way it is. trampling of one innocent persons rights is never acceptable to me. never. Im not out to "get" any good cops that try their best in a flawed system. im out to change the system and the way the game is played. If there are bad cops, then lets get them and help and praise the good ones. i believe there are other ways to do things that are better than what we have now.

I honestly could live with that. But I think you still have to much faith in your fellow man.

If we as society could accept that an officer can give a guy a single warning and request to surrender, id be down with that. But if he doesn't come out of the house then........
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k42t9IRpaAE]YouTube - JDAM 1000 lb bomb[/ame]

If we could accept this as a society I would be a happy and content man. Give people a chance, sure. But I would have to say that officers would then be allowed to rain down hell fire of biblical proportions if the situation went bad. A happy median between officer safety and personal rights will probably never be reached. We as a society owe it to our police officers to find a balance, stick with it, and show them respect for the difficult job they do.

 

[Benny]

So far I've seen "wait him out" and "tear gas" mentioned as alternatives. Tear gas may be a viable option, but what happens when a few people die because of pre-existing breathing conditions that cause them to choke to death? Besides, it's still a use of force to execute a search warrant, which is one of the things that has everyone so upset. Waiting them out could work, but how long do we wait? Do we just let them destroy all the potential evidence we're looking for? How about if they are like some of the folks here on INGO who have weeks or months worth of supplies and we waste millions in tax dollars setting siege to neighborhoods? What if they starve to death? Or die of dehydration? The fact is, flashbangs have been used thousands of times to safely end these types of situations. This is just a kneejerk reaction to this story. It doesn't make it less tragic, but it certainly doesn't mean that flashbangs are wildly dangerous and will burn houses down and kill everyone.

Yep, if this guy had respiratory problems and died, everyone screaming tear gas would be saying they should have used something else...Maybe even a flashbang.

Apparently, they should just always use the waiting game, who cares if a team of 30 people have to sit outside of the house for months on end because he has a stockpile of food and water. Hell, from now on we should allow them to have food delivered to them; we'll just let them die of old age so everyone stays happy.

I mean seriously, this piece of **** methhead with multiple warrants barricaded himself in his house and people are mad that he died because he refused to vacate despite an accidental fire was started.

THEY ASKED HIM TO EXIT THE HOUSE FOR HOURS AND HE REFUSED.

 

[public servant]

**WARNING:The Surgeon General has determined that illegal activity may be hazardous to your health.

 

[6birds]

**WARNING:The Surgeon General has determined that illegal activity may be hazardous to your health.

I'm allergic to black boot polish, and break out into a terrible rash. That fact alone has kept me out of trouble. That, and the beating from the nuns.

 

[88GT]

So far I've seen "wait him out" and "tear gas" mentioned as alternatives. Tear gas may be a viable option, but what happens when a few people die because of pre-existing breathing conditions that cause them to choke to death? Besides, it's still a use of force to execute a search warrant, which is one of the things that has everyone so upset. Waiting them out could work, but how long do we wait? Do we just let them destroy all the potential evidence we're looking for? How about if they are like some of the folks here on INGO who have weeks or months worth of supplies and we waste millions in tax dollars setting siege to neighborhoods? What if they starve to death? Or die of dehydration? The fact is, flashbangs have been used thousands of times to safely end these types of situations. This is just a kneejerk reaction to this story. It doesn't make it less tragic, but it certainly doesn't mean that flashbangs are wildly dangerous and will burn houses down and kill everyone.

It's not a knee jerk reaction to me. It's not even about the use of an incendiary. It's about the tactics LE employs. It's about the disregard of a man's life. It's about the ever-increasing power claimed by LE. It's about the use of preemptive force/violence against a target, an unverified target to boot. There was no way of knowing if children were in that house. And I'm sad to say I doubt it would have mattered.

But I fundamentally disagree with the premise that once initiated, a warrant must be executed to completion without interruption. Stand down. Go home. Get some rest. Have something to eat? So what if the evidence gets flushed. Or the bad guy doesn't go to jail to face the music that day. Honestly, is it worth the corruption of an entire subset of our liberty that that piece of evidence is saved from destruction?

And to clarify, it's not the use of force that is called into question but the use of force preemptively initiated specifically to counter a perceived threat of the use of force by the warrant's named subject. It goes without saying that a certain amount of force is necessarily to compel the unwilling to comply with the law or legal process. But the nature of that force and the justification for its use is not granted carte blanche.

 

[public servant]

I'm allergic to black boot polish, and break out into a terrible rash. That fact alone has kept me out of trouble. That, and the beating from the nuns.

Yep...screw the po-po. They ain't got nothing on an angry nun.

You want to solve the crime problem? Turn Sister Mary Catherine loose on them.

 

[rambone]

If you want to argue against no-knock warrants, that's fine. That wasn't the stated concern here though.

This was like the no-knock warrant from Hell.

I mean seriously, this piece of **** methhead with multiple warrants barricaded himself in his house and people are mad that he died because he refused to vacate despite an accidental fire was started.

Barricaded? Lets check our facts here, Benny. Are you just making things up to suit your drug warrior agenda?

Maybe you should give up this idea that you can stop people from getting intoxicated by using violent government force. These moral busybodies are more of a threat to society than these "piece of **** methheads" who don't respond to barking orders of the Gestapo in his front yard.

 

[88GT]

Yep, if this guy had respiratory problems and died, everyone screaming tear gas would be saying they should have used something else...Maybe even a flashbang.

Apparently, they should just always use the waiting game, who cares if a team of 30 people have to sit outside of the house for months on end because he has a stockpile of food and water. Hell, from now on we should allow them to have food delivered to them; we'll just let them die of old age so everyone stays happy.

I mean seriously, this piece of **** methhead with multiple warrants barricaded himself in his house and people are mad that he died because he refused to vacate despite an accidental fire was started.

THEY ASKED HIM TO EXIT THE HOUSE FOR HOURS AND HE REFUSED.

We don't know that he refused. We only know that he didn't comply.

He died in his bed. It's been hypothesized that his death is attributable to an inability to escape his burning home because he was unconscious/passed out, presumably from the meth in his system. It could be argued, then, that his non-compliance was not an act of disobedience by intent, but by inability.

FWIW, I would not be arguing against the tear gas. I would still be arguing against the use of preemptive force...particularly with a ****load of unknowns on the other side of the door.

 

[samot]

you do drugs ...you deserve to die !
welcome to america

of course he was a drugy !!
even if he wasnt a druggy when the fire started .....
they had to come up with something to cover up a screw up like that !!

 

[Benny]

This was like the no-knock warrant from Hell.

This was nothing like a no-knock warrant. NOTHING.

Barricaded? Lets check our facts here, Benny. Are you just making things up to suit your drug warrior agenda?

bar·ri·cade (br-kd, br-kd)
n.
1. A structure set up across a route of access to obstruct the passage of an enemy.
2. Something that serves as an obstacle; a barrier.

Would a locked door or two not be served as an obstacle? Do you lock your doors at night? If so, why do you do that?

 

[Benny]

We don't know that he refused. We only know that he didn't comply.

Don't you think you are splitting hairs a bit here?

He died in his bed. It's been hypothesized that his death is attributable to an inability to escape his burning home because he was unconscious/passed out, presumably from the meth in his system. It could be argued, then, that his non-compliance was not an act of disobedience by intent, but by inability.

It's also been said that police saw him starring out of the window after the fire was set...I don't know a single grown man that can't break a window. But that's just hearsay like his death being attributed to an inability to escape his burning home.

FWIW, I would not be arguing against the tear gas. I would still be arguing against the use of preemptive force...particularly with a ****load of unknowns on the other side of the door.

I'm still on board with tear gas as well. That seems like it would always be the better option.

 

[rambone]

This was nothing like a no-knock warrant. NOTHING.

Oh because they screamed at him after they broke down his door and set his house on fire? Yeah, totally different. lmao

 

[jsharmon7]

Oh because they screamed at him after they broke down his door and set his house on fire? Yeah, totally different. lmao

Do you really not read the stories you post? Do you just look for headlines you know will get a rise and post them up without understanding the facts?



EDIT: I just realized that I can't directly quote from the story, so I'll just refer to links 2 and 3 for the quotes that deal with your comment. It was stated that they called to him for over an hour to come out.

 

[Benny]

Oh because they screamed at him after they broke down his door and set his house on fire? Yeah, totally different. lmao

I totally missed the part where they said they kicked in the door and sent the flashbang in before asking him to exit the house via bullhorn for hours...Please point me to the part of the article(s) that says that and I will apologize for assuming.

I was under the impression they repeatedly asked him to exit before sending in the flashbang.

 

[Benny]

Do you really not read the stories you post? Do you just look for headlines you know will get a rise and post them up without understanding the facts?



EDIT: I just realized that I can't directly quote from the story, so I'll just refer to links 2 and 3 for the quotes that deal with your comment. It was stated that they called to him for over an hour to come out.

1. Those are rhetorical questions, right?

2. I believe you can quote excerpts from articles, just not larges parts and especially not the whole thing...At least that's the way I've understood the rule and I've never been asked to remove the quotes.

 

[88GT]

Don't you think you are splitting hairs a bit here?

No, I don't. Barricading is an active deed of defiance. The message is quite clear: I don't intend to come out. Non-compliance is simply that. It could be "I'm not coming out." But it could be "I can't come out." And while the "won't come out" is limited to one reason and one reason alone, the "can't come out" could be due to a whole host of reasons. Are we talking about likely scenarios? I don't think so. But if one is going to justify the actions of LE based on the argument that the guy was doing bad things, he damn well better be doing bad things. Police actions based on assumptions usually end up with feces splattered all over the ceiling. Nobody could say for sure there was anybody in the home, let alone that it was Serrato, let alone that he was actively defying their demands to come out. A whole lot of assumption taking place there.

It's also been said that police saw him starring out of the window after the fire was set...I don't know a single grown man that can't break a window. But that's just hearsay like his death being attributed to an inability to escape his burning home.

Did I not say it was simply a hypothesis? I merely brought it up to highlight the fact that his non-compliance could have been explained as something other than defiance. The fact remains that when they fired off the flash-bang they didn't know why he wasn't coming out.

The bottom line is this: the search warrant was for a simple fact-finding mission; Serrato wasn't even the murder suspect. Police later confirmed he wasn't even present at the bar during the shooting. And the excuse for all the bells and whistles was that they intended on arresting him for two MISDEMEANOR charges. And for all of that piddly crap, they implement a full-on SWAT action that results in the guy's death. It's not a stretch to say their approach was heavy on the use of force and light on the detective work.

 

[loony1]

you do drugs ...you deserve to die !
welcome to america

of course he was a drugy !!
even if he wasnt a druggy when the fire started .....
they had to come up with something to cover up a screw up like that !!

I really have nothing else to say, but to say that has to be the most ignorant comment so far

 

[Lex Concord]

And this is where we may never see eye to eye. I refuse to accept the premise that any and all actions are acceptable for the sole purpose of serving a warrant. Control of what? The man was essentially caught anyway. The house was presumably surrounded. His escape would have been nearly impossible. What was so damn important that they couldn't wait it out? That they had to have him RFN? They lost control the minute they resorted to that level of force/violence because they could no longer direct the course of action.

I don't know why he died. If he truly was under the influence of meth, perhaps he was simply unconscious and/or physically unable to escape. Perhaps he just refused to "be taken alive." Who knows? Doesn't seem pertinent, though it is a point of curiosity.



Tear gas? Wait him out? I don't really know what options are available, so I can't fully answer the question.

But here's a point to consider: We don't go in guns blazing with hostages because the loss of their life is considered unacceptable collateral damage for the mere apprehension of a suspect. I think the loss of the life of the suspect, no matter how rotten he may be, should be considered equally unacceptable as a matter of law. His rights are still intact. Or should be. This and similar methods presume a disregard for his life and a disregard for his right to due process. "Eh, it's okay. He was a criminal anyway. Shouldn't have fought the law and he'd still be alive."

When we as a society accept the premise that rights are conditional and dependent on our adherence to the law, we open a big whole can of worms that I don't even want to contemplate.

Sadly, I have to spread rep before I can hit you again.

Well stated.