In an instance of police incompetence and unnecessarily endangered citizens, Pittsburgh is the scene of yet another wrong home SWAT raid.
A woman is demanding answers after she said SWAT teams mistakenly raided her Sheraden home Tuesday.
Jessica Earnest told Channel 11 News that SWAT teams burst into her Faronia Street home Tuesday afternoon looking for a wanted man, but they had the wrong house.
Some of the damage left behind was overturned beds, an air vent cover pulled from the wall and ransacked rooms.
Earnest said officers handcuffed her with her two young children close by.
“The way they all came in here and just threw smoke bombs and kicked in the door, we could have gotten hurt,” Earnest said.
Earnest said she moved into the home less than a week ago and she’s never heard of the man police were looking for.
She said officers apologized and handed her a search warrant before they left. Channel 11’s Alan Jennings reported the warrant had bad information.
Yes, people could have gotten hurt. It’s happened before, to both innocent citizens and the police. If a dog had been in the home, it would have been killed so that the police could be assured of “going home safely at the end of their shift.” And it’s a good thing toddlers weren’t in their cribs either.
You have no right to invade my home, and there are easier ways to apprehend people. You do good detective work, find the individual of interest when he is away from other people, and use pepper spray if he resists.
But of course, that wouldn’t be as sexy as dressing up in Soldier-boy uniforms and tactical gear and being operators operating tactically with tactical gear while they operate, would it?
Police say a 17-year-old boy has been arrested for shooting at a group of fellow teens who approached him in an attempt to rob him.
According to the Mason Police District in Fairfax County, a group of five 17 and 18-year-old teens approached a 17-year-old boy they knew and demanded his cell phone in the 9300 block of Tovito Drive.
The five teens then confronted another 17-year-old they knew. However, that teen had a handgun he fired at the group. One 18-year-old was struck and transported to a hospital with non-life threatening injuries.
The 17-year-old who fired the weapon was arrested and charged with malicious wounding and use of a firearm in the commission of a felony.
The report is short on details. One possible course of action during a scenario like this is what I’ve discussed before, i.e., evasion, egress and escape. Backing away and thus changing the circumstances is better than getting shot or shooting someone. However, this isn’t always possible, and in fact a decision to evade can be foolish and life threatening if you are outnumbered, outgunned or even simply naive and overestimate your abilities. In most cases I would treat an aggressive approach like this as life threatening and I would defend myself accordingly.
Interestingly, the police seem to concede the point by saying that the gang attempted to rob him. As far as anyone knows, including the police, the gang never intended to stop at demanding loot. It must be assumed that they intended to harm or kill him, or that it could have evolved into such a situation. And given that knowledge, this report is beautiful in its simplicity. The gang threatened the life of this young man, he defended his life, and now he is under arrest for it. I suppose that the police would rather he have perished at the hands of the gang.
I found you via Sipsey Street links and have been reading intermittently. I had some free time this weekend, so after going to the range both days (yay), I was catching up on some articles I missed and when I saw some of the articles about abuse by police it reminded me of a recent encounter with our county sheriff’s deputies.
I went to the courthouse to renew an expired passport. When I got to the metal detector, I started to empty my pockets. I told the deputy manning the walk-through that I had a pistol and reached to unholster it, something I have done several times at this courthouse without incident (they have lockers to check any weapons). The pistol was pointed toward the floor the instant it cleared the holster. As soon as he saw it, he started screaming at me to give him the pistol. He was quite abrupt, unneccesarily I thought since I was the one holding a pistol. I told him I was going to clear the chamber before I handed it to him, but he continued to scream so I just handed it to him hot. Once through the metal detector, the sheriff approached and asked if I was law enforcement. He did not recognize me, disappointing since I take care of his wife, daughter and son-in-law, as well as having taken care of his late mother. He was polite, but clearly of a superior attitude. When I came back, Seargant Schultz was on break and another deputy retrieved my pistol, but refused to return it to me until we had reached the sidewalk in front of the courthouse, about 100′. During the entire walk, he kept asking “Why do you carry a pistol? (because I can), “Don’t you have a locked compartment in your car? (I have had several cars broken into, and I can’t protect myself with a pistol that is locked in my car), “Maybe you shouldn’t bring a gun to the courthouse” (your rule to not have it inside, so you should provide a place to check it).
This sheriff is new, currently serving his first term, but he apparently runs a rather loose-cannon department with disrespect for the people he allegedly serves. Never had any problems like this with the prior sheriff, who retired after about 25 years. Guess I know what campaign I will be working on the next time a sheriff election is held here.
Thanks for the writings. Being a physician in this day and age is especially distressing, as I have a better idea than most (I think) of the mayhem that lies ahead in our already collapsing “health-care” system. Your take on events (as well as that of Mike Vanderbough, David Codrea, and WRSA) is a reassuring boost to a flagging spirit.
Another raid on the wrong residence; another dead dog. This time, Iraq War veteran Adam Arroyo says he came home on Monday to find his door busted down, and his beloved pup dead from bullet wounds. The Buffalo, NY police did not seem too concerned with cleaning up blood or anything like that, but nonetheless left behind a note of sorts: a search warrant for the apartment next door.
“They busted the door down, with a battering ram or whatever,” he told the Buffalo News. “They came in, and within a few seconds of entering the apartment, they murdered my dog. They shot her multiple times. They had no reason to do that.” Arroyo says his dog, a two-and-a-half-year-old pit bull named Cindy, was killed while chained up in the kitchen, which he discovered ridden with bullet holes.
Arroyo is Hispanic and lives at 304 Breckenridge, upper-rear apartment, which has a completely separate entrance and is clearly marked on his mail box.
Let’s ignore the fact for a minute that this was another wrong address SWAT raid. There was no point to it. If the police had any smarts whatsoever, they would have peacefully stopped him on the street, while uniformed officers executed a search warrant on his home after getting a locksmith to open the door, keeping the physical plant and hardware intact.
But that’s not sexy and it isn’t statist and totalitarian. And it doesn’t allow the police to play soldier boy. There is moral element to these types of raids. As I’ve said before:
Law enforcement officers have no moral or legal right to trespass on my property and threaten me, or especially unholster their weapons and point them at me. And LEOs have no moral or legal right to shoot at me, my family members or my beasts. I consider every home invader to be a criminal, since impersonating the police is a common tactic among crime gangs now. Any such invasion of my home or property will be deadly, for the invaders, me, or both.
Soldier boy will stop invading homes and killing beasts and human victims when the price is too high. Thus far it is still too easy on Soldier boy.
An Oregon man has had rifle confiscated and is facing criminal charges after he attempted to stop a wanted felon from breaking into his home by firing a warning shot.
Police in Medford, Ore., say the incident occurred at around 11:30 p.m. on Sunday. Officers responded to an apartment complex in the area after receiving a disturbance call. During their investigation, cops heard a gun shot and a man running away toward the complex’s parking lot.
Authorities say 40-year-old Jonathon Kinsella, a wanted felon, was attempting to flee the scene when he was arrested on outstanding warrants, including for burglary and assault.
Military veteran Corey Thompson, 36, told KDRV-TV that the wanted felon was trying to beak into his home via the back door. Defending his property, Thompson said he warned the criminal that he was armed and he was giving him his one and only warning shot.
“This is the end result. You break into someone’s house, there’s consequences,” Thompson said.
Wielding his AR-15 semi-automatic rifle, the veteran made good on his threat and fired one warning shot. The bullet did not strike the suspect or anyone else.
“When I’m dealt with a stressful situation, being a veteran from Iraq and the Afghanistan war, it’s natural. I just jump into combat mode. I told him, ‘I’m going to give you a warning shot’,” Thompson explained.
However, police later determined he wasn’t justified in firing his weapon. Medford Police Lt. Mike Budreau said “there was nothing that the suspect was doing that was aggressive enough to justify the shooting.”
Apparently, for police in Medford, a wanted felon trying to break into a law-abiding citizen’s home isn’t enough to justify a warning shot.
Thompson was charged with unlawful use of a weapon, menacing and reckless endangering. The veteran’s AR-15 was seized by police because they claim it was used in the commission of a crime.
The comments section to this article contains horrible legal advice. Do not follow any of it, and do not get legal advice from anonymous commenters at The Blaze.
This poor man made one mistake. He talked to the police. Listen to me very carefully. When the police show up, flip open their note pad, and begin asking questions, they are not your friend. They are not there to protect and serve you.
You are not trained in the law or the legal nuances of what you might say, correct or incorrect, and all of the implications thereof, while under duress. While this video has made the rounds within the firearms community, it’s worth watching again, and if you’ve never watched it, do it now. Watch every single second of it, and if you didn’t get it the first time, watch it again.
Do not ever talk to the police. Do you understand?
The 72-year-old man didn’t even make it to the house across the street before he was shot. He died on his own property.
The neighbors in the Woodhaven Country Club area and generally know each other pretty well. Becky Haskin, a former Fort Worth City Councilmember, lives in the area and said she believes Waller, “…was doing what neighbors do probably checking on the neighbor that the alarm went off.”
The elderly man, who was armed at the time, was shot and killed in his own driveway by police responding to a burglary call. “We heard five shots,” Haskin recalled. They were just rapid fire one after the other.”
Speaking on the incident Fort Worth police Cpl. Tracey Knight said, “Officers felt threatened by the man with the handgun and he was shot.”
After the shooting Haskin said, “The police officers were sobbing uncontrollably and very distraught.”
Sobbing and distraught or not, the police will never be held accountable for this crime. If I or any of my readers do something like this, it would be considered assault with a deadly weapon, brandishing a firearm, and probably second degree murder. It wouldn’t matter that we “felt threatened.” But a man has a right to be armed on his own property, and it’s highly doubtful that the elderly man pointed his weapon at the police. If he had the initial report would have said so.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. Law enforcement officers have no moral or legal right to trespass on my property and threaten me, or especially unholster their weapons and point them at me. And LEOs have no moral or legal right to shoot at me, my family members or my beasts. I consider every home invader to be a criminal, since impersonating the police is a common tactic among crime gangs now. Any such invasion of my home or property will be deadly, for the invaders, me, or both.
In lieu of being held accountable, which will never happen in the U.S. court system, I hope that these officers see the poor elderly man’s face every night of their lives as they try to sleep. I know men who are LEOs who do things differently. This kind of thing can be done safely, and bevavior which reflexively shoots innocent people is hazardous to everyone (bystanders and homeowners alike), especially the innocent victims.
In a slight twist of the SWAT team raids the wrong home theme, Austin American-Statesman has this report.
Driving in the early morning hours to his job at a metal shop in Buda, Miguel Montanez at first thought the approaching lights were a school bus or a tow truck.
But Montanez says it was a Hays County SWAT truck that rammed his car head-on. As they collided, another police vehicle pinned him from behind, he says.
He heard a shot.
“I saw my windshield crack, and I ducked down as low as possible,” Montanez said. “I really thought I was going to die.”
Seconds later, he says, three deputies were pointing assault rifles at him. “That’s when I heard one of the officers say, ‘Oh, (expletive), we got the wrong guy,’ ” Montanez said.
Montanez, 39, filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court on May 6 against Hays County, the city of San Marcos and nine law enforcement agents for injuries he says he sustained that morning last summer, July 13.
Even after officers realized that he was not the suspect, he said, they kept him in handcuffs for half an hour while they questioned him and ran a warrant check that came up with nothing. Then they let him go.
Montanez, who lives in Guadalupe County, said that one of the officers told him they were looking for one of hisbrothers, who lives at a different address.
Sheriff’s officials in Hays County and San Marcos police declined to comment.
The county’s insurance company paid about $3,700 for the damage to the car, which was totaled, but has never offered an apology or to cover his medical bills. Montanez said he suffered a herniated disc in his back …
Out of control. These are the only words that I can think of to express the situation and supply some analysis, albeit brief. This SWAT team is completely out of control and off the chain.
When we have SWAT teams ramming cars and shooting at innocent people, it’s way past time for the concept of SWAT teams to come to a timely end or at least focus on the much less frequent instance of active shooters or kidnappings.
But no court anywhere will hold the police accountable. Welcome to Amerika!
I was working in South Carolina this week and staying with my son and his family in upstate S.C. I attended worship this Sunday at his church (I won’t mention the name of the church), and there he was. Mr. Tacticool (if I am not mistaken, Mauldin Police Department).
He was awesome, with fatigues, Kevlar vest, patches and insignia, thigh holster, and on and on the equipment went. Cool, he was. But that’s all he accomplished today. Being cool.
If the church was addressing a specific threat, plainclothes officers carrying concealed would have been more effective at catching a perpetrator, which is ultimately the goal of any long term safety and security program.
A skilled shooter, bent on harming the most people and practiced at reloads, could have killed a hundred people before Mr. Tacticool ever made his way into the building (Mr. Tacticool stood on the sidewalk outside the church looking cool, while 2000 people worshiped inside).
The best approach to safety and security for the congregants would have been for as many of them to carry concealed as possible. The Church authorities should endeavor to make that happen. As for the police, they were just irrelevant today. But Mr. Tacticool looked cool.
Thanks to a push from local faith-based organizations and an assist from the Pasadena Police Department, 135 guns were taken off the streets Saturday at the Pasadena Area Gun Buyback and Peace-source Fair.
More than a hundred gun owners drove up to the Pasadena PD and unloaded guns to be traded for gift certificates to Ralphs, Target and Best Buy stores.
According to Lt. Tracey Ibarra, of the weapons collected, about half were rifles and half were pistols — and there were some especially notable items, including an AK-47 assault rifle, an SKS assault rifle and a sniper rifle with scope that would be repurposed by the department for training use.
Likely it was a bolt action rifle with a nice scope, 5.56 mm, or .243, or .270, or .308, or .338. And rather than it being considered a hunting rifle, or a target shooting rifle, it was a “sniper rifle.”
Make no mistake about it. The press doesn’t know the difference between a magnifying glass and a rifle scope, or a detachable magazine and a flash suppressor. They got this stuff from the LAPD, who “repurposed” the weapon to something they wanted. The LAPD told the press that they bought a “sniper rifle” in the buyback. Unfortunately, the police are still controlling the narrative.
I had previously asked the question of a purchase at Walmart, “If someone had purchased a really nice bolt action .308 with expensive glass, what would the press have done if this had gotten into criminal hands? Perhaps call it a “sniper rifle?”
No. It doesn’t have to be in criminal hands at all. It just has to be a bolt action rifle with a scope. But make no mistake. The only time it will really be a sniper rifle to most civilians is if the police ever try to confiscate such firearms. If they do that, millions of people will “repurpose” their guns just like the police did.
13 years ago
