Swat Raid on Missouri family home

[Joe90]

Interesting thread. I'm amazed how quick some people are to blame the Police. The whole thing is disturbing, especially the thought that two family dogs were shot, but I'd have to agree with T3T --

There is more to this story than meets the eye.

[huedell]

Interesting thread. I'm amazed how quick some people are to blame the Police. The whole thing is disturbing, especially the thought that two family dogs were shot, but I'd have to agree with T3T --

Originally Posted by Type3Toys
There is more to this story than meets the eye.

There BETTER be...or everyone that's jumping the gun due to "appearances"
are right after all, and the act should indeed be condemed.

[LadyZod]

While the shooting of the family's pets is upsetting, what is more upsetting is the idea that this could happen to anyone regardless of connection to drugs or terrorism.

It's one thing to just say, "oh that kind of thing only happens to bad guys in bad neighborhoods" it's another thing to actually watch it happen to what for all intent and purposes is a "normal" family.

Sure, the guy had weed and weed related items (bong), but did they find what they expected to?

The first article from back in February gives law enforcement's take on it, which if that was all there was to it, I'd say "Sure, reasonable..."

But with the release of the footage and the original press statement not matching up, that's what gives me cause to question, was it really reasonable?

Was their intelligence ENOUGH to reasonably sanction a paramilitary raid?

Was it overkill? Can this happen to any innocent citizen who's house has been fingered by a crook trying to get a lighter sentence?

[huedell]

If you send a swat team into someones house and open fire with children around, kill their dogs and basically terrorize them, you better come up with a hell of lot more than half a bag of weed or someones *** is gonna flying from a flag pole.

Maybe, maybe not, eh?

If the research is found to be legit, yet what due to unforeen circumstances
actually ends up as finding less "physical evidence" than they expected,
then the idea of minimal physical evidence is noted, but is secondary
to following through on an educated decision, I'd think.

[jp1969]

Reminds me of an incident that happened here in Rock Forest during the 80s.
2 carpet layers killed in a motel room in the middle of the night.
"Uh sorry,we got the wrong guys".

[AAAAA]

the question in mind did they plant the weed in there, to cover up there tracks.
I already had the city of Brewster try to pass a undercover police offer in my office,as a fire inspector ,in the hopes of dropping drugs on the floor to arrest me an my partners , How did know, when he was told that its against the 4 amendment get a non cop.He left with the uniformed police Sargent, 6 months later, he commit a felony when filed a false , summons That second time he showed up we told him leave, and that we made threats.unfortunate for him we had patient (navy retired) walking around outside. he given a sworn affidavit that no one other than he was there.
the cop/fire inspector said some pretty incompetent things that we also nailed him on.

[Joe90]

There BETTER be...or everyone that's jumping the gun due to "appearances" are right after all, and the act should indeed be condemed.

And if there IS, everyone who jumped the gun due to appearances are wrong, and it's the fault of the adults in that house for endangering innocent children and family pets by engaging in illegal activities.

Home invasions are an all too frequent occurrence when there are illegal drugs involved. When it's the bad guys doing it there aren't generally video cameras recording the procedure, and oftentimes it's more than the family pets protecting their home that get killed.

I agree cops DO sometimes get it wrong, and brutalize or kill innocent victims, but I'd hazard a guess that many many more guilty -- and dangerous -- people walk free because of legal technicalities, or a lawyer who presents them as innocent victims of circumstance or Police error. That's the real flaw in US/Canadian Justice, not some rogue cop planting a bag of weed. In either case it's decent law-abiding people who suffer the consequences.

If the Police are guilty of inappropriate behaviour then they will suffer the consequences. If the adults from that home are guilty of inappropriate behaviour, I would hope they suffer the consequences.

[Zemo]

This is a updated article and if you read it, you can see that the cops hand no idea what they were doing and told one obvious lie. All this for possession of paraphernalia. Nice!

http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/...ry-is-ongoing/

[huedell]

This is a updated article and if you read it, you can see that the cops hand no idea what they were doing and told one obvious lie. All this for possession of paraphernalia. Nice!

http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/...ry-is-ongoing/

I read the article...your comment(s) seems a bit hard to decipher at first read.

An "obvious lie"? (apparently not TOO obvious)

"No" idea what they were doing? (If you want to paint it like that., I guess.)

You mean evidence gathered that said the child wasn't at home?
You mean the fatal shot to the dog wasn't shot right away?

Just curious what's your comment getting at?

[huedell]

Reminds me of an incident that happened here in Rock Forest during the 80s.
2 carpet layers killed in a motel room in the middle of the night.
"Uh sorry,we got the wrong guys".

Yes, except this WAS the residence they were trying to raid...so I don't
really see the connection.

[huedell]

And if there IS, everyone who jumped the gun due to appearances are wrong, and it's the fault of the adults in that house for endangering innocent children and family pets by engaging in illegal activities.

Home invasions are an all too frequent occurrence when there are illegal drugs involved. When it's the bad guys doing it there aren't generally video cameras recording the procedure, and oftentimes it's more than the family pets protecting their home that get killed.

I agree cops DO sometimes get it wrong, and brutalize or kill innocent victims, but I'd hazard a guess that many many more guilty -- and dangerous -- people walk free because of legal technicalities, or a lawyer who presents them as innocent victims of circumstance or Police error. That's the real flaw in US/Canadian Justice, not some rogue cop planting a bag of weed. In either case it's decent law-abiding people who suffer the consequences.

If the Police are guilty of inappropriate behaviour then they will suffer the consequences. If the adults from that home are guilty of inappropriate behaviour, I would hope they suffer the consequences.

I feel the same way Joe.

[Joe90]

This is a updated article and if you read it, you can see that the cops hand no idea what they were doing and told one obvious lie. All this for possession of paraphernalia. Nice!

http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/...ry-is-ongoing/

It's not looking good for Law Enforcement.

The follow up story dispels the allegations that drugs were planted, and the video evidence is also an indication that there was no wrong doing as far as an attempted cover up by Law Enforcement -- the video was used by the victim to prove his case of inappropriate force used by the Police. If the Police were as corrupt as some people allege, this video would've disappeared.

We'll never know the true story, I guess. But the bottom line was that an innocent family pet was shot, and a 7 year old child was exposed to the senseless violence. I hope that the investigation sorts this out and makes the people responsible pay the consequences. I really don't care if it's a macho SWAT team member, or a drug dealing dad who got lucky and moved his product before the raid took place.

[toys2cool]

Glad to see i wasn't the only one who felt that way guys

[Zemo]

I read the article...your comment(s) seems a bit hard to decipher at first read.

An "obvious lie"? (apparently not TOO obvious)

"No" idea what they were doing? (If you want to paint it like that., I guess.)

You mean evidence gathered that said the child wasn't at home?
You mean the fatal shot to the dog wasn't shot right away?

Just curious what's your comment getting at?

Yes, they said they shot the dog because he was aggressive on entering, it was the first shot they fired. Well it was untrue, I can tell you that is a big deal anytime weapons are discharged, lying about the shooting.

They had all this intel that was supposed to be the driving factor in the raid and they didn't know he had a kid?

Charges all dropped except the lowest misdemeanor. That doesn't sound like a screw up that somebody wants to go away? Dealers house no scales? No guns? No cash?

That=no dealer.

[huedell]

Yes, they said they shot the dog because he was aggressive on entering, it was the first shot they fired. Well it was untrue, I can tell you that is a big deal anytime weapons are discharged, lying about the shooting.

They had all this intel that was supposed to be the driving factor in the raid and they didn't know he had a kid?

Charges all dropped except the lowest misdemeanor. That doesn't sound like a screw up that somebody wants to go away? Dealers house no scales? No guns? No cash?

That=no dealer.

I'm not trying to be a jerk...but you're jumping to conclusions regarding
that they definitely weren't dealers aren't you?

I agree about the botch up with shots fired being shady, but just because they were sloppy doesn't make them scam artists all of the sudden.

I'd like to hear more info.