Another Raid Gone Bad!!

[baddax]

Just wanted to get the ddo communities opinion of this..........http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-vwON-Eb5w

[whitehawk74]

Well, any comment made would just be a reaction to what was seen on the video and not what really happened. The news cant be trusted - ever. It has become such a commercial and hypnotic tool.
I do fail to see what it had to do with him being ex-military. Plenty of people serve, and as its not mandatory it shouldn't be an issue. For all we know he could have been a truck driver.
Just my opinion, and opinions are like arseholes, everyone has them.

[baddax]

Well, any comment made would just be a reaction to what was seen on the video and not what really happened. The news cant be trusted - ever. It has become such a commercial and hypnotic tool.
I do fail to see what it had to do with him being ex-military. Plenty of people serve, and as its not mandatory it shouldn't be an issue. For all we know he could have been a truck driver.
Just my opinion, and opinions are like arseholes, everyone has them.

I think military was important because its possible he was trained to react in a certain way under certain conditions, that when he woke up he had a flashback of his military training and was doing what was instictive and "grabbing his rifle." Though i am not a militarty person myself i understand it is bad to get caught asleep wile on watch without your weapon.

[AndyD47]

(A.)I think military was important because its possible he was trained to react in a certain way under certain conditions, that when he woke up he had a flashback of his military training and was doing what was instictive and "grabbing his rifle."

(B.)Though i am not a militarty person myself i understand it is bad to get caught asleep wile on watch without your weapon.

(A.)
Anybody can buy a firearm for self-defense,military or not, and he went for it when someone busted down his door.

I would argue that the fact that he did not open fire was due to his "military training",by that I mean he realized who he was dealing with and abstained from firing...which can not be said of this particular SWAT team.

Everybody that busts down your door and shouts "Police" might not be a LEO (edit:assuming it wasn't a No-Knock warrant)...and clearly this individual was prepared for the worst if it came to that,and I would like to think he was responsible enough to hold his fire.


(B.)
Asleep on watch? Without a weapon?
That's not right even if you were armed to the teeth.

[mournbladereigns]

My question would be why do you care what the DDO community thinks? ...

"I didn't play D&D all those years without learning a little something about courage."

[baddax]

My question would be why do you care what the DDO community thinks? ...

"I didn't play D&D all those years without learning a little something about courage."

Why did you care enough to reply to this post?
So you are using D&D as a basis for your understanding of courage? You might try real life courage and then get back to me.

[NinjaNeed]

My internet connection is, atm, extremely bad so I can not view the whole video. I can, however, comment on the story. Just reading the little note at the bottom of the video:

What would you do if you know you have nothing wrong and you been targeted police or not a war vet would stand ready to die with his rifle 60 bullets come on !!!

My replies:

1. If I knew I had done nothing wrong and the police came to talk to me I would talk to them.
2. If I was a policeman and was omw to speak to a suspect (which he was!) and found him holding a rifle I would immediately assume the worst, to not do so could lead to your own death.
3. Knowing he was ex-military makes the fact he had the rifle even worse! Ex-military means he knows how to use a gun which means he is VERY dangerous.

Therefore, and this is just from the text at the bottom of the video, not from the video itself, we can conclude that the police were justified in their reaction.


As a member of the SAS involved in the 1980's Iranian Embassy Siege in London told the judge in the after-mouth of the event when asked "why did XXX have 39 bullets in his head?" "Because I ran out of bullets".

[Nysrock]

As a member of the SAS involved in the 1980's Iranian Embassy Siege in London told the judge in the after-mouth of the event when asked "why did XXX have 39 bullets in his head?" "Because I ran out of bullets".

As a member of a police department I can tell you that our training involves firing until they are no longer a threat. The problem is when you have multiple police on scene, like in the video, and a threat emerges. You don't take the time to ask the others who is going to do what, you react to the threat per your training. So when the media starts counting wounds it can be really misleading. Now if it was only 1 officer and he was shot 22 times then yes, someone really overreacted.

But like was posted earlier, we are only hearing one side of the story and not necessarily the whole truth on either side. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, it is one of the things our military fights for, but I'd say it would be wrong to jump to any conclusions based on that short news story and limited information.

[baddax]

But like was posted earlier, we are only hearing one side of the story and not necessarily the whole truth on either side. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, it is one of the things our military fights for, but I'd say it would be wrong to jump to any conclusions based on that short news story and limited information.

I find it very ironic that you use a right that is protected by the armed forces to muddy the waters of an action that involved loss of life of a said military officer.

[AMDarkwolf]

Any story can be spun any way.

In this we see 'ONLY' what the reporters/media involved choose to show, or what info they have.

I'm sure the cops didn't run up to his door with the intention of shooting him 60 times.

Lots of 'info' we Don't know, won't know, and likely, could never know.

Its just another event that can be, sadly, forgotten and let be. (I'm sure there's thousands and thousands of other 'events' which have similar 'stories')

Basically since I can't know everything, I cannot judge.

[baddax]

Any story can be spun any way.

In this we see 'ONLY' what the reporters/media involved choose to show, or what info they have.

I'm sure the cops didn't run up to his door with the intention of shooting him 60 times.

Lots of 'info' we Don't know, won't know, and likely, could never know.

Its just another event that can be, sadly, forgotten and let be. (I'm sure there's thousands and thousands of other 'events' which have similar 'stories')

Basically since I can't know everything, I cannot judge.

Thats what forensic evidence is about. There were multiple eye witnesses. The police involved, the wife, Neighbors etc etc.

You are right we only have what is reported and this is one of my pet peeves, media hype. Its the medias job to report the news and not sensatinalize it. Hower it seems like they do less of the former and more of the latter.

I have heard this said before. There are 3 sides to every story. There is the parties involved and and the Truth which lies somewhere in between.

[BOgre]

CNN

'nuff said.

[baddax]

CNN

'nuff said.

So this story would be differenrt if it was reported on fox news?
Interesting thought ill see if i can dig up foxws inrterpretation.

[Nysrock]

So this story would be differenrt if it was reported on fox news?
Interesting thought ill see if i can dig up foxws inrterpretation.

Well I think it would be reported slightly different on another channel but I still think it would have that news agencies spin placed on it no matter what. That is the main reason I never watch the news, too much biased reporting with spins placed on everything and not enough just plain ol honest to goodness facts. That would be a novel idea though, report the facts and let the people decide for themselves how to take it instead of trying to force them all to look at it the way YOU want them to.

[Blank_Zero]

CNN

'nuff said.

Chicken Noodle News

[NinjaNeed]

OK, fixed my internet connection (wireless router is broken!).

Seen the video.

1. The police clearly made it apparent that it was the police.
2. The police "claim" they have evidence he was a drug dealer. No drugs were found, but that does not prove the story either way.
3. He actually POINTED the rifle at the police, that is clearly an aggressive act and the police responded accordingly.
4. He had his wife and children in the house, I feel bad for them ofc, but that is NOT unheard of in the drug industry (using family as a kind of human shield).


Basically this is a tragic incident that should not have happened. I do NOT blame the police at all for their actions, all we can do is hope that the police will investigate the evidence pointing to a drug stash at his home and find out why their information was wrong.

[Nysrock]

Well I do know that most major drug dealers have a better communication system then most law enforcement agencies. Again, I cannot know if this was a bad tip, mistake or if he got wind and moved the evidence. If it was a mistake or a bad tip then they should investigate and make sure it never happens again. But stuff like that happens all the time and we never know the whole truth: Ruby Ridge, Waco, Etc...

I appreciate the different points of view and the lively discussion. Thanks to everyone into not turning it into another cop bash.

[BOgre]

the video doesn't show the victim raising his weapon. it doesn't show the victim at all. Nor his supposed stash of weapons. What's more, I highly doubt that his bedroom was accessed through the front door. If he had just woken up, he must have been sleeping where? in the front hallway? Door opens - rain of bullets. There are so many facts missing from where we sit that to comment in any meaningful way is impossible. Neither the cop-centric nor the victim-centric version of this story holds water from what we can see in the vid. Granted the points made above are great and well thought out; I just don't know how germane they can possibly be based on what we can see from the vid. Hence: CNN - nuff said. They'll happily show stock footage of random drug raids while discussing this case, if they feel like vilifying the victim, or conversely they'll show random footage of police brutality while reading the story if they feel like bashing the cops that day... oh, and someone mentioned FoxNews: seriously? Don't watch TV folks. No good can come of it.

[jwdaniels]

Ex-military = civilian. Civilians don't have the right to brandish weapons at police. Police officers have spouses and children at home waiting for them to come home. Shooting an armed, uncooperative suspect is not police brutality.

[AndyD47]

Ex-military = civilian. Civilians don't have the right to brandish weapons at police. Police officers have spouses and children at home waiting for them to come home. Shooting an armed, uncooperative suspect is not police brutality.

Arizona is a stand-your-ground state, the victim as a civillian was well within his rights to be armed in the defense of his home.

Seeing as how it was a No-Knock warrant it makes perfect sense for him to be "uncooperative",if someone is busting in your door you really can't be faulted for going for your firearm.

It's just a horrible damned if you do damned if you don't situation for the victim from the start.

This is a tragic story and I feel bad for both the swat team and the victim,but the fact of the matter is that this was a poorly executed warrant that ended up in a death that could have easily been avoided with...I don't know...A regular warrant?

You worry about the SWAT team returning to their homes,when this poor guy got gunned down in HIS home in front of HIS children.