Like I Said, It’s Pretty Common

May 13, 2010

Like I Said, It’s Pretty Common

Most people probably believe that the mistakes of the SWAT raid on Jonathan Whitworth’s home in Columbia are extraordinarily rare. That is, unfortunately, false. I’m sure most SWAT raids do find the person and evidence they are looking for (even if the amount of force they use is unnecessary for the task), but raids that turn up nothing or hit the wrong house are unacceptably common. Today’s example comes from Georgia:

An elderly Polk County woman is hospitalized in critical condition after suffering a heart attack when drug agents swarm[ed] the wrong house. Machelle Holl tells WSB her 76-year-old mother, Helen Pruett, who lives alone, was at home when nearly a dozen local and federal agents swarmed her house, thinking they were about to arrest suspected drug dealers.

“She was at home and a bang came on the back door and she went to the door and by the time she got to the back door, someone was banging on the front door and then they were banging on her kitchen window saying police, police,” said Holl.

Holl says her house was surrounded and she was scared to open the door. When the Polk County Police Chief finally convinced her she was safe, she let them in.

“They never served her with a warrant. At that point, she said the phones were ringing with the other men that were in the yard and they realized that it was the wrong address,” said Holl. [...]

“My mother has had a heart attack. She has had congestive heart failure and she is in ICU at the moment. She is not good condition and her heart is working only 35 percent,” said Holl.

Holl admits that her mother has had three heart attacks but has been doing well for the past couple of years.

“She was traumatized. Even the doctor said this is what happens when something traumatic happens. He said it’s usually like a death in the family or something like that just absolutely scares them half to death, and that is what has happened,” said Holl.

SWAT raids are designed shock and confuse, which is why, when they occur, many people believe the police are actually criminals attacking them. This can lead to heart attacks or residents attempting to defend themselves from perceived criminals, setting off a deadly firefight. When SWAT raids are used for nonviolent situations, they almost always introduce danger into the situation rather than removing it.

Also, there is this tidbit:

Police say they have had her mother’s home under surveillance for two years.

Holl says if that’s true, how could police get the wrong address?

“We have just found out from a neighbor that they (police) went into some other elderly woman’s home who was on oxygen and took her oxygen off of her and scared her half to death,” said Holl.

If the police really have been watching the house for two years and still raided the wrong house (I have my doubts), it certainly makes the Columbia Police Department’s new rule of keeping houses that they plan to raid under constant surveillance seem woefully inadequate.

Story via Hit and Run.

« Read Previous Entry Read Next Entry »

21 Comments »

[...] via Hit and Run. Cross-posted at Show-Me Daily. Posted by Rough Ol' Boy Filed in Uncategorized Leave a Comment [...]

Pingback by Like I Said, It’s Pretty Common « Rough Ol' Boy — May 13, 2010 @ 12:57 p.m.
I wonder if the free-market types at the Show-Me Institute would tolerate the use of “pretty common” by a liberal who alleges – in lights of three instances of fraud nationwide over the last three months by business – that fraudulent business practices are “pretty common.” What basis, other than three news reports over a time period during which there have been thousands of search warrants safely and productively executed across the country, do you have for alleging misuse of SWAT raids is a big problem. This poor lady in Georgia certainly is in line for a big civil settlement, but this is a case of “dog bites man” and its irresponsible to sugggest otherwise absent a shred of data.

Comment by Tom — May 13, 2010 @ 2:47 p.m.
The state of Maryland now forces police departments to keep records on every instance in which a SWAT team is used. The records from the last six months of 2009 indicate that there are 4.5 raids in that state a day, which if scaled up to a national level (problematic to be sure, but the Maryland numbers are the best sample we have) would be 225 a day nationally. In Maryland, 94 percent of those raids were to serve search or arrest warrants, not to handle violent situations, so, yeah, I’d call that pretty common. Source here:

http://reason.com/archives/2010/03/01/45-swat-raids-per-day

Comment by John Payne — May 13, 2010 @ 3:02 p.m.
John, I am having a hard time understanding why the “mistakes” are not considered rare. You have come up with two events (occurring in separate weeks) for an event that you estimate has a fequency of 225 times a day every day.

At what rate of occurrence do you consider these “mistake” events to become “Pretty Common” or even “Rare”.

Comment by DaveG — May 13, 2010 @ 4:06 p.m.
I have a flight to board, but three quick points before I do:

1) Using SWAT raids for non-violent situations is a problem in and of itself.

2) The shooting of animals in these raids is pretty much standard procedure. Senior editor at Reason Magazine Radley Balko is pretty much the foremost expert on SWAT raids in America, and he finds it so common in his work that he started simply referring to it as “puppycide.”

3) Go to Balko’s blog (theagitator.com) and search for “isolated incident” because that is the sarcastic term he uses for botched raids because they are so common. I don’t know how often they happen exactly, but it seems to come up in the media a few times every week. That no doubt understates the problem because many incidents are never reported in the media.

Comment by John Payne — May 13, 2010 @ 4:27 p.m.
The data is actually very much on John’s side o the argument here. I’m in transit but I’ll try to pull some numbers in a bit

Comment by Eapen Thampy — May 13, 2010 @ 5:59 p.m.
If you want more information on this subject, here is an interview Balko just gave to Vice Magazine about SWAT raids:

http://www.viceland.com/blogs/en/2010/05/13/swat-killed-my-buzz/

He estimates wrong door raids are reported in the media about once a week, so I will defer to his judgment on that one (but again, plenty appear to go unreported). Balko also gives lie to the idea expressed by Tom that the woman in Georgia will be getting a big cash settlement. It might happen, but historical precedent suggests it won’t and certainly not without a large public outcry.

Comment by John Payne — May 13, 2010 @ 7:53 p.m.
Anyone who contends that “serving search warrants or arrest warrants” are not violent situations is totally unqualified to blog about law enforcement matters.

Comment by Tom — May 14, 2010 @ 9:19 a.m.
An interesting, somewhat off topic thought:

These are recent examples of SWAT raids gone bad.

I will disclaim this that I am in no way an expert on anything pertaining to law enforcement or military strategy.

Think about the situation in Afghanistan. Basically the term ‘urban warfare’ means that every event is similar to a SWAT raid. It is scary to think that on US soil, in a mostly peaceful environment such as Columbia MO that a man can in about one minute have both his dogs shot and find himself arrested. Similarly, it is amazing that this woman in GA can have this happen to her.

Given the frequency of these ‘everything done wrong’ attacks (which i understand is in question in the comment section), would be scaled on to a level where raids would be happening multiple times a day in the most violent and stressful circumstances.

I dont really have much of a comment on whether anything is good or bad, but I find it interesting how easy it is for things to go wrong on US soil. Problems like these would be terribly amplified in war-time situations over seas.

Comment by Adam Lodes — May 14, 2010 @ 4:28 p.m.
Anyone who contends that serving search warrants or arrest warrants are violent situations by default is delusional.

Comment by Eapen Thampy — May 15, 2010 @ 1:17 p.m.
Allow me paint you a not-so-pretty picture… and these are solely no-knock raids, which would exclude the incident cited here: http://www.cato.org/raidmap/

Comment by Surrealpolichick — May 15, 2010 @ 5:18 p.m.
So Tom, you are contending that every person that is served a search or arrest warrant is prepared to guns blazing, suicide-by-cop instead of allowing the police to serve the warrant? I’m afraid that I’m inclined to agree with Eapen here…

Comment by John Payne — May 16, 2010 @ 12:56 p.m.
I am still having a hard time grasping that these mishaps are common or out of line. 1 mistake in every 1500 or so raids does not seem “common” to me. I tried finding some metrics from other countries “mistake” rates and found nothing.

Comment by DaveG — May 16, 2010 @ 6:56 p.m.
1 in 1500 would be roughly the number if we take the high end estimate and assume that the botched raids reported in the media are the only ones there are, and we have good reason to believe that’s not the case as whenever the media does report on one, many people come forward saying that similar things happened to them. In fact, that’s exactly what happened in Columbia at the Civilian Police Review Board meeting on Thursday according to this account:

http://www.theagitator.com/2010/05/14/report-from-the-meeting-of-columbias-citizen-review-board/

We can’t know exactly how often any of this happens because there are no statewide public records outside of Maryland and those only go back a year. However, it seems likely that for every reported episode, there are several that no one hears about for months or years, if ever.

But let’s take the 1 in 1500 number for the sake of argument. If 1 out of every 1500 cans of Coca Cola was poisonous, would it be common to get a poisonous can of Coke? Would it be acceptable? Toyota recalled 3.9 million vehicles over 56 deaths blamed on a stuck accelerator (although, in many cases, it looks like driver error is to blame: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/OpEd-Contributor/I-am-not-afraid-of-my-Toyota-Prius-87361597.html), which is a ratio of something like 1 in 70,000. Toyota finds such a ratio unacceptable, and if they didn’t, I’m sure Congress would. However, few politicians worry about the much higher 1 in 1500 accident ratio of agencies over which they exert control. But I suppose that’s close enough for government work, eh?

If you want to argue the semantics of it, I’ll concede that a botched SWAT raid is not “common” in the sense of statistical likelihood, but it is obviously “common” in that it happens on a very regular basis. But either way, the real issue isn’t whether it’s common but whether it’s acceptable, and to that, I answer a resounding “no.”

Comment by John Payne — May 16, 2010 @ 8:12 p.m.
I dont see how a controlled environment such as manufacturing design and operations can come close to comparing to what could happen within the uncontrolled environment of what is considered to be a high-risk warrant or high-risk arrest.

Per your definition above, I do believe that it is “unacceptably common” for the press to sensationalize unfortunate events.

Comment by DaveG — May 17, 2010 @ 3:14 p.m.
You are certainly correct that a SWAT creates a very uncontrolled environment that makes it inherently dangerous. I believe that proves my point. If SWAT raids create an environment that carry such risks, they should be restricted to situations where they are absolutely necessary (i.e. where the violence is already present, not created by the raid itself).

Not all arrests or warrants are high-risk, but that’s the way they are usually treated by SWAT teams. In the Columbia raid, there was no evidence that Whitworth possessed a gun, but the police simply assumed he did. The best numbers we have indicate that SWAT raids only turn up weapons (that’s guns, knives, etc.) in 10 to 20 percent of cases. (See here: http://reason.com/archives/2010/05/11/a-drug-raid-goes-viral) How can the rest be classified high-risk? There are examples of cities using SWAT teams to break up charity poker games and arrest people like Sal Culosi, an optometrist who made a few bets on sports. He’s dead because when the SWAT team tried to arrest him, one of the officer’s finger slipped, discharging his weapon into Culosi:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/29/AR2006112901416.html

Shall we have the SWAT team raid offices to break up the company March Madness pool? Would that be a good use of police resources and an acceptable way of ensuring public safety? Finally, at what point does the invasion and destruction of innocent people’s property and in some cases their lives become unacceptable to you?

Comment by John Payne — May 17, 2010 @ 3:37 p.m.
I don’t know about some of these items. I read those articles a little differently. I read the 10%-20% of cases that turn up weapons only occurs when it is a botched raid. Using our numbers above, that only happens 1-in-1500 times. I would think it would be fairly safe to assume the 1499 out of 1500 times there are a higher frequency of weapons found otherwise the article would not have made such a specification.

Also, reading into Sal Culosi, he appears to be a fairly big time bookie. I don’t know anything more about the story and have no evidence of this, but when I think of illegal bookies, I think of organized crime.

Like I mentioned above, I have been trying to find more information out on the subject. So I don’t know what my point of where this becomes unacceptable. However, I think the police need to be appropriately protected when they need to perform high-risk raids as only approved by local judges. Unfortunately, civilian lives will come into jeopardy at times for the greater good of protecting our society.

Comment by DaveG — May 18, 2010 @ 8:33 p.m.
No, the 10%-20% figure applies to all raids. See this short story about a woman who was shot and killed along with her young daughter (who survived but is missing a hand) by an Ohio SWAT team:

http://reason.com/archives/2008/12/05/death-by-swat

Here’s the key graf:

A Denver Post investigation found that in 80 percent of no-knock raids conducted in Denver in 1999, police assertions that there would be weapons in the targeted home turned out to be wrong. A separate investigation by the Rocky Mountain News found that of the 146 no-knock warrants served in Denver in 1999, just 49 resulted in criminal charges, and only two resulted in prison time. Media investigations produced similar results after high-profile mistaken raids in New York City in 2003, in Atlanta in 2007, and in Orlando and Palm Beach, Florida, in 1998. When the results of the Denver investigation were revealed, former prosecutor Craig Silverman said, “When you have that violent intrusion on people’s homes with so little results, you have to ask why.”

Furthermore, Culosi made bets with a number of people, but he was not a bookie; he did not derive his income from gambling. He was an optometrist, and, as I recall, he actually lost a fair amount of money on his gambling hobby. He wasn’t exactly Frank Rosenthal.

Finally, aren’t the police supposed to take on extra risk so that civilian lives aren’t put into danger? Isn’t that the whole point of having police? Sorry, but putting civilian lives in danger to protect society reminds me of the old Vietnam War adage about destroying the village to save it.

Comment by John Payne — May 18, 2010 @ 11:02 p.m.
[...] commenter on this Show-Me Daily post about SWAT raids wondered how much worse military raids in Afghanistan might be compared to SWAT raids in this [...]

Pingback by SWAT Raids vs. Military Raids « Rough Ol' Boy — May 19, 2010 @ 5:00 p.m.
I read the survey to say the 10%-20% figure applies to only failed raids, but I can see your interpretation now also. Perhaps the writer from reason.com could have used better grammar:

“Surveys conducted by newspapers around the country after one of these raids goes bad have found that police only find weapons of any kind somewhere between 10-20 percent of the time.”

http://reason.com/archives/2010/05/11/a-drug-raid-goes-viral

I still think Culosi appears to be both a bookie and an optometrist:

“The shooting of Salvatore J. Culosi, an optometrist under investigation for being a sports bookmaker”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/29/AR2006112901416.html

Of course the police take on extra risk. However, they are not martyrs. They have rights to protect themselves in case there are loaded weapons hiding behind closed doors. I also don’t see any reports of police departments destroying entire neighborhoods to bring down mafia bookies or drug dealers.

Comment by DaveG — May 19, 2010 @ 9:45 p.m.
#17…Also, reading into Sal Culosi, he appears to be a fairly big time bookie. I don’t know anything more about the story and have no evidence of this, but when I think of illegal bookies, I think of organized crime.

#20…I still think Culosi appears to be both a bookie and an optometrist.”

Dave G…both of the above thoughts are yours to make…or to quote…and while I don’t know who you are…and you are entitled to “your thoughts”…it is obvious that you didn’t know my son. The one correct thing you said…is…that you have no evidence of this…but chose to make a blanket…and I might add…incorrect statement aimed at him…regardless.

The FCPD had Sal listed as low risk on their assessment of him…they knew he made his living as an optometrist…that he had no criminal record…never owned a weapon…had no propensity for violence…and was a non-threat; but they chose nevertheless…to send a SWAT team…to intimidate and frighten him…by their excessive show of force…(who by their own admission say they never consider the risk assessment and treat any operation they are sent on as High risk, which in keeping with the FCPD policies, protocols, and training, calls for an officer to be at ready gun with his weapon pointed at the center mass of whomever he is confronting)… while serving him…with a document search warrant.

Sal is not here to speak for himself…and there is only one witness…to what is claimed to have taken place…and that is the officer…who wrongfully shot…and killed…my compliant and unarmed…son. There were other officers present, but they claim that they didn’t see what happened.

Sal was 37…in the prime of his life…and was serving our Fairfax County community…in his profession…as an optometrist…not endangering it…or any of its residents. He was very intelligent…and admired…by his peers…and well thought of…and liked by his patients.

Our family loves and misses him…as do his friends. Life needs to be held in higher regard…it is sacred…unique…irreplaceable…with…or…without a badge.

Mr. Payne…thank you for recognizing…and appreciating those situations…that should have been handled differently…at the very least…with common sense…without putting anyone in harms way…while leaving no margins for error…and heightening the potential…for the tragic…and devastating loss…of precious lives.

May God bless all those souls…who have been wronged…in “isolated incidents.”

Sal’s Mom
http://www.justiceforsal.com

Comment by Mrs. A. Culosi — May 20, 2010 @ 1:06 p.m.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Categories

[...] via Hit and Run. Cross-posted at Show-Me Daily. Posted by Rough Ol' Boy Filed in Uncategorized Leave a Comment [...]

Pingback by Like I Said, It’s Pretty Common « Rough Ol' Boy — May 13, 2010 @ 12:57 p.m.

I wonder if the free-market types at the Show-Me Institute would tolerate the use of “pretty common” by a liberal who alleges – in lights of three instances of fraud nationwide over the last three months by business – that fraudulent business practices are “pretty common.” What basis, other than three news reports over a time period during which there have been thousands of search warrants safely and productively executed across the country, do you have for alleging misuse of SWAT raids is a big problem. This poor lady in Georgia certainly is in line for a big civil settlement, but this is a case of “dog bites man” and its irresponsible to sugggest otherwise absent a shred of data.

Comment by Tom — May 13, 2010 @ 2:47 p.m.

The state of Maryland now forces police departments to keep records on every instance in which a SWAT team is used. The records from the last six months of 2009 indicate that there are 4.5 raids in that state a day, which if scaled up to a national level (problematic to be sure, but the Maryland numbers are the best sample we have) would be 225 a day nationally. In Maryland, 94 percent of those raids were to serve search or arrest warrants, not to handle violent situations, so, yeah, I’d call that pretty common. Source here:

http://reason.com/archives/2010/03/01/45-swat-raids-per-day

Comment by John Payne — May 13, 2010 @ 3:02 p.m.

John, I am having a hard time understanding why the “mistakes” are not considered rare. You have come up with two events (occurring in separate weeks) for an event that you estimate has a fequency of 225 times a day every day.

At what rate of occurrence do you consider these “mistake” events to become “Pretty Common” or even “Rare”.

Comment by DaveG — May 13, 2010 @ 4:06 p.m.

I have a flight to board, but three quick points before I do:

1) Using SWAT raids for non-violent situations is a problem in and of itself.

2) The shooting of animals in these raids is pretty much standard procedure. Senior editor at Reason Magazine Radley Balko is pretty much the foremost expert on SWAT raids in America, and he finds it so common in his work that he started simply referring to it as “puppycide.”

3) Go to Balko’s blog (theagitator.com) and search for “isolated incident” because that is the sarcastic term he uses for botched raids because they are so common. I don’t know how often they happen exactly, but it seems to come up in the media a few times every week. That no doubt understates the problem because many incidents are never reported in the media.

Comment by John Payne — May 13, 2010 @ 4:27 p.m.

The data is actually very much on John’s side o the argument here. I’m in transit but I’ll try to pull some numbers in a bit

Comment by Eapen Thampy — May 13, 2010 @ 5:59 p.m.

If you want more information on this subject, here is an interview Balko just gave to Vice Magazine about SWAT raids:

http://www.viceland.com/blogs/en/2010/05/13/swat-killed-my-buzz/

He estimates wrong door raids are reported in the media about once a week, so I will defer to his judgment on that one (but again, plenty appear to go unreported). Balko also gives lie to the idea expressed by Tom that the woman in Georgia will be getting a big cash settlement. It might happen, but historical precedent suggests it won’t and certainly not without a large public outcry.

Comment by John Payne — May 13, 2010 @ 7:53 p.m.

Anyone who contends that “serving search warrants or arrest warrants” are not violent situations is totally unqualified to blog about law enforcement matters.

Comment by Tom — May 14, 2010 @ 9:19 a.m.

An interesting, somewhat off topic thought:

These are recent examples of SWAT raids gone bad.

I will disclaim this that I am in no way an expert on anything pertaining to law enforcement or military strategy.

Think about the situation in Afghanistan. Basically the term ‘urban warfare’ means that every event is similar to a SWAT raid. It is scary to think that on US soil, in a mostly peaceful environment such as Columbia MO that a man can in about one minute have both his dogs shot and find himself arrested. Similarly, it is amazing that this woman in GA can have this happen to her.

Given the frequency of these ‘everything done wrong’ attacks (which i understand is in question in the comment section), would be scaled on to a level where raids would be happening multiple times a day in the most violent and stressful circumstances.

I dont really have much of a comment on whether anything is good or bad, but I find it interesting how easy it is for things to go wrong on US soil. Problems like these would be terribly amplified in war-time situations over seas.

Comment by Adam Lodes — May 14, 2010 @ 4:28 p.m.

Anyone who contends that serving search warrants or arrest warrants are violent situations by default is delusional.

Comment by Eapen Thampy — May 15, 2010 @ 1:17 p.m.

Allow me paint you a not-so-pretty picture… and these are solely no-knock raids, which would exclude the incident cited here: http://www.cato.org/raidmap/

Comment by Surrealpolichick — May 15, 2010 @ 5:18 p.m.

So Tom, you are contending that every person that is served a search or arrest warrant is prepared to guns blazing, suicide-by-cop instead of allowing the police to serve the warrant? I’m afraid that I’m inclined to agree with Eapen here…

Comment by John Payne — May 16, 2010 @ 12:56 p.m.

I am still having a hard time grasping that these mishaps are common or out of line. 1 mistake in every 1500 or so raids does not seem “common” to me. I tried finding some metrics from other countries “mistake” rates and found nothing.

Comment by DaveG — May 16, 2010 @ 6:56 p.m.

1 in 1500 would be roughly the number if we take the high end estimate and assume that the botched raids reported in the media are the only ones there are, and we have good reason to believe that’s not the case as whenever the media does report on one, many people come forward saying that similar things happened to them. In fact, that’s exactly what happened in Columbia at the Civilian Police Review Board meeting on Thursday according to this account:

http://www.theagitator.com/2010/05/14/report-from-the-meeting-of-columbias-citizen-review-board/

We can’t know exactly how often any of this happens because there are no statewide public records outside of Maryland and those only go back a year. However, it seems likely that for every reported episode, there are several that no one hears about for months or years, if ever.

But let’s take the 1 in 1500 number for the sake of argument. If 1 out of every 1500 cans of Coca Cola was poisonous, would it be common to get a poisonous can of Coke? Would it be acceptable? Toyota recalled 3.9 million vehicles over 56 deaths blamed on a stuck accelerator (although, in many cases, it looks like driver error is to blame: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/OpEd-Contributor/I-am-not-afraid-of-my-Toyota-Prius-87361597.html), which is a ratio of something like 1 in 70,000. Toyota finds such a ratio unacceptable, and if they didn’t, I’m sure Congress would. However, few politicians worry about the much higher 1 in 1500 accident ratio of agencies over which they exert control. But I suppose that’s close enough for government work, eh?

If you want to argue the semantics of it, I’ll concede that a botched SWAT raid is not “common” in the sense of statistical likelihood, but it is obviously “common” in that it happens on a very regular basis. But either way, the real issue isn’t whether it’s common but whether it’s acceptable, and to that, I answer a resounding “no.”

Comment by John Payne — May 16, 2010 @ 8:12 p.m.

I dont see how a controlled environment such as manufacturing design and operations can come close to comparing to what could happen within the uncontrolled environment of what is considered to be a high-risk warrant or high-risk arrest.

Per your definition above, I do believe that it is “unacceptably common” for the press to sensationalize unfortunate events.

Comment by DaveG — May 17, 2010 @ 3:14 p.m.

You are certainly correct that a SWAT creates a very uncontrolled environment that makes it inherently dangerous. I believe that proves my point. If SWAT raids create an environment that carry such risks, they should be restricted to situations where they are absolutely necessary (i.e. where the violence is already present, not created by the raid itself).

Not all arrests or warrants are high-risk, but that’s the way they are usually treated by SWAT teams. In the Columbia raid, there was no evidence that Whitworth possessed a gun, but the police simply assumed he did. The best numbers we have indicate that SWAT raids only turn up weapons (that’s guns, knives, etc.) in 10 to 20 percent of cases. (See here: http://reason.com/archives/2010/05/11/a-drug-raid-goes-viral) How can the rest be classified high-risk? There are examples of cities using SWAT teams to break up charity poker games and arrest people like Sal Culosi, an optometrist who made a few bets on sports. He’s dead because when the SWAT team tried to arrest him, one of the officer’s finger slipped, discharging his weapon into Culosi:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/29/AR2006112901416.html

Shall we have the SWAT team raid offices to break up the company March Madness pool? Would that be a good use of police resources and an acceptable way of ensuring public safety? Finally, at what point does the invasion and destruction of innocent people’s property and in some cases their lives become unacceptable to you?

Comment by John Payne — May 17, 2010 @ 3:37 p.m.

I don’t know about some of these items. I read those articles a little differently. I read the 10%-20% of cases that turn up weapons only occurs when it is a botched raid. Using our numbers above, that only happens 1-in-1500 times. I would think it would be fairly safe to assume the 1499 out of 1500 times there are a higher frequency of weapons found otherwise the article would not have made such a specification.

Also, reading into Sal Culosi, he appears to be a fairly big time bookie. I don’t know anything more about the story and have no evidence of this, but when I think of illegal bookies, I think of organized crime.

Like I mentioned above, I have been trying to find more information out on the subject. So I don’t know what my point of where this becomes unacceptable. However, I think the police need to be appropriately protected when they need to perform high-risk raids as only approved by local judges. Unfortunately, civilian lives will come into jeopardy at times for the greater good of protecting our society.

Comment by DaveG — May 18, 2010 @ 8:33 p.m.

No, the 10%-20% figure applies to all raids. See this short story about a woman who was shot and killed along with her young daughter (who survived but is missing a hand) by an Ohio SWAT team:

http://reason.com/archives/2008/12/05/death-by-swat

Here’s the key graf:

A Denver Post investigation found that in 80 percent of no-knock raids conducted in Denver in 1999, police assertions that there would be weapons in the targeted home turned out to be wrong. A separate investigation by the Rocky Mountain News found that of the 146 no-knock warrants served in Denver in 1999, just 49 resulted in criminal charges, and only two resulted in prison time. Media investigations produced similar results after high-profile mistaken raids in New York City in 2003, in Atlanta in 2007, and in Orlando and Palm Beach, Florida, in 1998. When the results of the Denver investigation were revealed, former prosecutor Craig Silverman said, “When you have that violent intrusion on people’s homes with so little results, you have to ask why.”

Furthermore, Culosi made bets with a number of people, but he was not a bookie; he did not derive his income from gambling. He was an optometrist, and, as I recall, he actually lost a fair amount of money on his gambling hobby. He wasn’t exactly Frank Rosenthal.

Finally, aren’t the police supposed to take on extra risk so that civilian lives aren’t put into danger? Isn’t that the whole point of having police? Sorry, but putting civilian lives in danger to protect society reminds me of the old Vietnam War adage about destroying the village to save it.

Comment by John Payne — May 18, 2010 @ 11:02 p.m.

[...] commenter on this Show-Me Daily post about SWAT raids wondered how much worse military raids in Afghanistan might be compared to SWAT raids in this [...]

Pingback by SWAT Raids vs. Military Raids « Rough Ol' Boy — May 19, 2010 @ 5:00 p.m.

I read the survey to say the 10%-20% figure applies to only failed raids, but I can see your interpretation now also. Perhaps the writer from reason.com could have used better grammar:

“Surveys conducted by newspapers around the country after one of these raids goes bad have found that police only find weapons of any kind somewhere between 10-20 percent of the time.”

http://reason.com/archives/2010/05/11/a-drug-raid-goes-viral

I still think Culosi appears to be both a bookie and an optometrist:

“The shooting of Salvatore J. Culosi, an optometrist under investigation for being a sports bookmaker”

Of course the police take on extra risk. However, they are not martyrs. They have rights to protect themselves in case there are loaded weapons hiding behind closed doors. I also don’t see any reports of police departments destroying entire neighborhoods to bring down mafia bookies or drug dealers.

Comment by DaveG — May 19, 2010 @ 9:45 p.m.

#17…Also, reading into Sal Culosi, he appears to be a fairly big time bookie. I don’t know anything more about the story and have no evidence of this, but when I think of illegal bookies, I think of organized crime.

#20…I still think Culosi appears to be both a bookie and an optometrist.”

Dave G…both of the above thoughts are yours to make…or to quote…and while I don’t know who you are…and you are entitled to “your thoughts”…it is obvious that you didn’t know my son. The one correct thing you said…is…that you have no evidence of this…but chose to make a blanket…and I might add…incorrect statement aimed at him…regardless.

The FCPD had Sal listed as low risk on their assessment of him…they knew he made his living as an optometrist…that he had no criminal record…never owned a weapon…had no propensity for violence…and was a non-threat; but they chose nevertheless…to send a SWAT team…to intimidate and frighten him…by their excessive show of force…(who by their own admission say they never consider the risk assessment and treat any operation they are sent on as High risk, which in keeping with the FCPD policies, protocols, and training, calls for an officer to be at ready gun with his weapon pointed at the center mass of whomever he is confronting)… while serving him…with a document search warrant.

Sal is not here to speak for himself…and there is only one witness…to what is claimed to have taken place…and that is the officer…who wrongfully shot…and killed…my compliant and unarmed…son. There were other officers present, but they claim that they didn’t see what happened.

Sal was 37…in the prime of his life…and was serving our Fairfax County community…in his profession…as an optometrist…not endangering it…or any of its residents. He was very intelligent…and admired…by his peers…and well thought of…and liked by his patients.

Our family loves and misses him…as do his friends. Life needs to be held in higher regard…it is sacred…unique…irreplaceable…with…or…without a badge.

Mr. Payne…thank you for recognizing…and appreciating those situations…that should have been handled differently…at the very least…with common sense…without putting anyone in harms way…while leaving no margins for error…and heightening the potential…for the tragic…and devastating loss…of precious lives.

May God bless all those souls…who have been wronged…in “isolated incidents.”

Sal’s Mom
http://www.justiceforsal.com

Comment by Mrs. A. Culosi — May 20, 2010 @ 1:06 p.m.

May 13, 2010