Video of SWAT Raid on Missouri Family

[mirza]

http://reason.com/blog/2010/05/05/video-of-swat-raid-on-missouri

What are your opinions on this particular raid and on SWAT raids in general in the US?

Personally I found this to be disgusting and it's not because they killed the guy's pet but because his kid was watching as the officers fired guns and terrorized their house...

From the article:

"They found a "small amount" of marijuana, enough for a misdemeanor charge. The parents were then charged with child endangerment.
So smoking pot = "child endangerment." Storming a home with guns, then firing bullets into the family pets as a child looks on = necessary police procedures to ensure everyone's safety.
Just so we're clear."

Opinions??

Fuck the police?

 

[Fishy]

"Oh my fucking god."
That is my opinion. Why the fuck would you shoot a house pet? This really just pisses me off, I don't know what else to say.

 

[Eraddd]

I still think one incident shouldn't be "FUCK DA PO PO." Yeah, the accident was tragic and fucked up on the SWAT team's part, but seriously, don't let one incident cloud your judgment.

If sending a SWAT team for a simple drug bust was routine, then I'd have something else to say.

 

[CardsOfTheHeart]

Here's a followup video that might be worth watching.

But, damn. I'm embarrassed as a Missourian. Seriously, what the hell did you shoot the dogs for?! I need more context about the search warrant.

 

[cantab]

Dogs can be dangerous; I'd expect the average citizen with a gun might shoot a dog if they felt threatened by it. We don't see how the dogs acted.

But police aren't average citizens. They should have a better way of handling dogs. Officers going into a house in the middle of the night know the occupants will be asleep, know people have dogs that will be loose, and know some dogs will attack intruders. To not have any response other than opening fire is absolutely, totally, utterly stupid, and shows a dreadful lack of thought.

EDIT: The discussion video states there have been "times in the past" they've shot dogs. So I change my view. They have thought about it, and decided shooting dogs is OK.
If I could, I'd fake the shooting of the SWAT team members' dogs. See how they like it.

What they found is less relevant than what they EXPECTED to find. You only dawn raid those you think are dealers.

I question the need for such heavy weapons in such raids at all. The British approach is to gain entry very fast, rush in, and detain all occupants before they would have the chance to make any use of their own weapons (or dispose of any drugs, which is usually the bigger concern). If a gun is expected then armed units would be used though. They'd never knock first either, that defaults the whole point, that knock is the warning someone needs to flush or swallow the drugs.

SWAT are supposed to be elite specialists, but this lot are just incompetent.

 

[Phadunk]

"Pathetic"

You gotta love the flexing of the power.

 

[Flamewheeler]

That was just awful. The dog's whining almost brought me to tears- I'm a huge animal lover. First of all, even with the search warrant, they're are at least supposed to give you a chance to comply. Not fucking "police department" and kick the door down. Second, the dog would've have never caused any trouble if they would have done what a I stated before. That was horrific and pretty fucked up on the police department's side. They will probably hear about it, but nothing will be done. Welcome to the U.S. =/

Edit: maybe a warrant for a rade says differntly, but regardless, those men are morons and could've handled to situation much better.

 

[cantab]

Some more info says there was a gate (like a baby gate) between the dogs and the officers. So evidently Missouri employs blind SWAT members.

 

[Flamewheeler]

They were just gun happy and the camera was happily in the livingroom when the dog was shot. Typical...

 

[Veedrock]

Here's the link to the article on the incident. It has more information than the video or that ridiculously biased accompanying article contains. In fact I'm surprised this guy's blog even links to it because it contradicts everything he's trying to suggest.

Cards, that video you linked to doesn't really provide any insight on the matter; with it coming from a site called copblock.com of all fucking places, it's completely biased and total bullshit. It's pretty fucking funny though. "Well you should wait for the dog to jump on a guy before you shoot." Yeah lets fire when its on an officer, brilliant. Then he goes on a rant that people have control of their bodies blah blah blah. UGH.

It doesn't matter what they found on site. You can make your big deal about only finding small amounts of pot but for them to have a warrant and to have a swat team arrive on site, they expected a more. Just because they didn't find it doesn't immediately make this incident atrocious or ridiculous. Are you genuinely trying to tell me that if they found a lab and firearms that it would completely justified? Anyways, from the article I linked to:

Police discovered a grinder, a pipe and a small amount of marijuana, Haden said. Because the SWAT team acts on the most updated information available, the team wanted to enter the house before marijuana believed to be at the location could be distributed, she said.

“If you let too much time go by, then the drugs are not there,” she said.

Drug distributors traditionally have a history with firearms, which is why the SWAT team is used when executing such warrants, Haden said. If the SWAT team believed they could have executed the warrant successfully during the daytime when the wife and child were not present, they would have, she said.

Also I can't believe people are making such a big deal about this because the dog died. Otherwise it would not be getting this kind of attention. About the dog anyhow, the officer(s) described it as "acting in an uncontrollably aggressive manner." It really doesn't matter what they're wearing, given the environment they were stepping into and the situation at hand, the last thing on the officer's mind is "what civil manner should I handle the dog in," or even "the dog can't hurt me." Relating to the bit I quoted above, the swat expected a lot more than what they encountered and the dogs were also distraction. Regardless of how much harm they can actual do to a person, it's that distraction that is the primary issue. As cantab mentioned, time is important in these type of events. Spur of the moment, given the immediate task at hand and the little response time available, what in the hell do you expect? Perfection?

As for the events happening in front of a kid, again, what in the hell do you expect? What alternative is there? They have absolutely no time or preparation to ensure the kid isn't present. Damn these cops to hell, they can't control every factor in a scenario that they're forced into. Horrible bastards obviously don't know how to do their job (sorry for the heavy sarcasm but I'm genuinely aggravated that they take heat for stuff like that).

Some more info says there was a gate (like a baby gate) between the dogs and the officers. So evidently Missouri employs blind SWAT members.

Source? I see the gate in the video but its not up. Not that the officers couldn't have removed it but it seems largely pointless from what I can see. Even then I can come up with reasons why a baby gate probably wouldn't change the situation but 'whatever.' And while I'm addressing you, I like the approach you described in your post, but I'm pretty sure there's some law hindering that depending on the area in the US (I can't be bothered to look it up). And speaking of that method, what if dogs are present??

 

[archangel_94]

To hell with these blind,cruel,donut-eating,tubs of lard!

Don't they know that when a stranger appears in their house,the naturalthing for dogs to do is to ATTACK THE STRANGER??

So does that mean,that parents having a small stash of weed in their house,is more dangerous than having the police shooting a 7-year old's dog in front of his eyes??
If he grew up and blew up a police station,I wouldn't hold it against him.

All I can say is:Oink Oink,I smell bacon,and it stinks.Time to throw it in the trash where it belongs.

 

[reachzero]

I'm with Veedrock on this one. If I knew (or had very substantial reason to believe) that this guy had a large quantity of illegal drugs and an intent to distribute, I would also have to assume that he is potentially armed and dangerous. Nothing good even comes from involving oneself in the drug trade, and this guy knew it before he got involved involved. It isn't like this guy was an innocent law-abiding citizen, and yes, there is good reason to think his kid could have been in danger (there always is around the drug trade). Now, whether they are correct that he had intent to distribute to yet to be seen, but there was no way of knowing that at the time. The police had to evaluate the information and decide how to deal with it appropriately. As for shooting the dogs, I see that as almost a footnote to the story. They apparently were somewhat threatening (we can't see in the video), and at any rate the cops had to prepare for the possibility of a gun battle. Barking and possibly interfering dogs would NOT be a good thing in those circumstances. In other words, if you look at the situation and say "this guy was just your average guy that liked smoking weed now and then", you think the force used was disproportionate. If you think that the police had sufficient reason prior to going in to think that the guy had intent to distribute than the force used was justified.

 

[VKCA]

I don't think they intentionally shot the dog in front of the seven year old. Their mindset was most likely not: "oh ya there is a seven year old, lets kill his dog while he watches!", I think it was probably more like "That dog is trying to kill me, kill it first"
Pitbulls also don't have the greatest reputation as being friendly dogs.

 

[Scimjara]

When I saw the shooting of the pet that shocked the living crap out of me.

 

[BuddyBlueBomber]

The event taking place does seem to make it seem like what the police did was a bad thing, but it's not like they had a choice. Like some people here have said before, they were prepared for any possible sort of situation that could arise, and armed drug users/dealers are not all too uncommon. The police deemed it necessary to try and catch the guy off-guard, considering whatever information they had against him. Just because they didn't find as much as they hoped, doesn't mean that they made a bad judgement. Besides, with the way they knocked on the door like that, he could of flushed a whole friggin' bag of the stuff down the toilet. Who knows.

About the police "terrorizing" the house in front of the little kid, it's really not that horrible of a situation, but it may have caused some confused feelings inside the child. I wouldn't be surprised if he grew up being distrusting or aggressive to the police in some way, because he probably didn't understand the situation fully at such a young age. We don't know if the child was being abused, either. There might be physical evidence that was not disclosed, or we do not know about, which suggests abuse.

The shooting of the dogs was a bit disturbing at first, but it's really not that big of a deal. They could not continue the raid with the dogs barking like that, as they had a serious job to do. We don't even know if the dogs were acting aggressive or not. They might have been attempting to assault an officer, which certainly is grounds for what the police had done. And I don't know if you haven't noticed, but with the tone and way the guy was talking about it, it didn't really seem like he cared all too much.

"What the fuck man, those were good dogs! Those were good dogs! They were probably just trying to play with you! Those were good dogs."!

Being a loving pet owner, I know that this is exactly what I would not say in this situation. I'd probably be crying all over the damn floor. His apathy towards the pets might indicate how much he really cares for his family. Obviously being in his early 20's and a drug user, I wouldn't be surprised if his family was subject to abuse or neglect. The fact is that what the police did was probably best in this kind of situation.

 

[Thund91]

I cant bring myself to watch the video (heck, I start bawling from that Sarah Mclachlan commercial.....), but I dont think its right to automatically look down on the SWAT team. They had a job to do. If you were in there shoes what would you have done? Pitbulls arent Maltese here. I always try to look at everything from different perspectives.

Although I am pretty ignorant on the matter. Shouldnt the 'elite' police have a better way of handling a situation like this? They should have thought this out because pets are so common nowadays, especially dogs. Couldnt they have brought one of those guns that simply put the animals to sleep or something? I'm trying to not be biased but I think they couldve stabalized the dogs in a better way, however I dont really know much about how pollice raids work...

 

[Ferrouswheel]

I like dogs, in fact, I own a dog, Kelly that my family adopted from a local shelter. I think that it's tragic that the dogs died. However, assuming that the evidence was that the man could be a drug dealer, then I think that the use of force was entirely warranted, even though was completely unnecessary in this case. After all, Pit Bulls can kill people, in most states in the US, the dog licenses for pit bulls are more expensive then other dogs because they are more dangerous.

Also, to the people complaining that they shot the dog in front of the kid, imagine if the police had been right, and the father was armed. Would you complain if they had shot a gun-waving man in front of his son?

Also, is anyone else paying attention to the fact that the Mexican military is fighting drug lords in Mexico, and not completely winning?

 

[cantab]

It doesn't matter what they found on site. You can make your big deal about only finding small amounts of pot but for them to have a warrant and to have a swat team arrive on site, they expected a more.

I wouldn't be surprised if they did only expect to find modest quantities of marijuana. Really wouldn't be surprised at all.

Source?

Afraid I forgot it. So yeah take it with a pinch of salt until someone can confirm.

I see the dogs as an issue, because I think that one of two things must have been the case, neither of which make the police look good. Either they knew dogs were present and did not plan a non-lethal way to address them, which shows a disregard for the life and welfare of innocent pets. Or they didn't know dogs were present, in which I question the reliability of the rest of their evidence - ie that regarding how much drugs there was. All too often in many countries this kind of raid is done based on a single 'tip-off'. Know someone who smokes a bit of weed and want them to get busted? Tell the cops he's dealing!

 

[vonFiedler]

The dogs are at the very least distracting, so they must die? SWAT teams aren't ideally supposed to kill, or even fire unless directly threatened. You can say protecting the officer's life is what matters most, but that doesn't change their MO. However, that all gets thrown right out the window when it comes to dogs. Their regard for canine life is sociopathic. They deserve so much worse than the small internet backlash they are going to get. The system needs to change.

 

[Raverist]

Well, that's typical american justice for ya.

SWAT team or not, shooting family dogs because they're distracting is just wrong, and especially in front of a seven year old. This little act is likely what Al-Qaeda show to their martyrs in training, showing how infidel these pigs are, and I'm not surprised.

Barbaric trigger-happy (BAN ME PLEASE)s are barbaric.

 

[Quaily]

The police were doing their job. You can complain all you want but here are the facts:

police arrest people in possession of illegal drugs
that man had illegal drugs
by having said illegal drugs he put both his family and pets in danger

You can rage all you want about the police, but the fact is they have a procedure and they have to follow it. We the people established the procedures, and if you want to rage against something rage against our inability to create a coherent drug law, leading to situations like this. The police cannot say "oh it's just a little marijuana we can let him off." They are mandated by the public to arrest people in possession of any illegal drugs.

 

[Raverist]

But does possession of a small amount of an illegal drug really constitute having a SWAT team barge down your door, executing innocent animals, likely mentally scarring your offspring for years to come and then shoving a 'Child Endangerment' charge on the victims for having a small bit of hash?

If so, then you really should think about applying as a Serebii forum mod, as you are a fascist pig just like those law enforcement officers.

 

[capefeather]

People are way overreacting to this. Seriously, why are we resorting to calling these people (and even EACH OTHER wtf) pigs, fascists, etc.?

 

[Crisis]

The fact that the dog died is just a side effect of the bigger issue. A SWAT team was sent into a totally inappropriate situation for a SWAT team to be in. It's true that someone in the family broke the law, but they didn't commit the crime that the police suspected them of.

What this means is that, somewhere along the line, the police fucked something up. Perhaps they had an unreliable source, perhaps they overestimated the risk, perhaps they misinterpreted the evidence. It doesn't matter, really - the point is that they used totally inappropriate forces for the actual situation.

Of course, this isn't the SWAT team's fault. They were just doing their job based on the information they were given (and sadly that involved killing the dog in front of a young child). I'm not particularly sympathetic, though - it should have quickly become obvious to a trained professional that nothing in the house presented a threat. They were clearly on edge because they were expecting actual danger, but that's not an excuse for misinterpreting events and immediately opening fire; which, while not illegal, was still totally avoidable and highly traumatic for the child.

The bottom line is that the role of the police is to protect the people. They have clearly failed in this case.

 

[Kromlech]

It's really not fair to call them trigger-happy barbaric (BAN ME PLEASE)s, the guy that did it probably feels like shit. Your guess is as good as mine. Dogs get killed by police all the time, whether their master said "sic em" or not. It's an unfortunate fact of life. This isn't the first time an innocent dog was killed over something so trivial, and it sure won't be the last.

When I saw this thread this morning I was outraged too, but after I thought about it more and calmed down (and got that screeching and whelping out of my head) I realized it really was the suspect's fault, not the police.