Police in Evansville, Indiana were alarmed to find threatening comments from someone on the Internet toward local police. They responded by sending a SWAT team to a home to capture the person who left the Topix postings. They invited a camera crew to watch them take down the villain — and it did not exactly turn into the camera-ready moment that they had hoped for.
When police arrived, the door to the home was reportedly open and found Stephanie Milan, 18, sitting inside watching television. Rather than conduct a standard knock and announce, the SWAT charged the home as the invited camera crew and reporter filmed the operation. SWAT team members broke windows and the screen door as flashbang grenades were thrown into the home.
The message is seems was sent on an open WiFi router by a teenage kid outside of the house and the family was released. Nevertheless, the reporter that night, according to the article below, reported how this raid was “an investigation that hits home for many of these brave officers.”
The officers later went to the right house, but this time simply knocked and left the SWAT team at the station.
They found a teen who admitted to having a “smart mouth” and a dislike for the police. Here is the message sent by smartphone:
The chief of police is standing by the raids as good police work and the mayor stands by the actions of the police.
Source: Arstechnica and Daily Mail
“In principle I can see that using lesser means to case a person might be appropriate. In this case, it would not have worked. The reason is that if you have a potential bomber, the LAST thing you want them to know is that the police are closing in on them.”
Well, I certainly have no experience in this.
My point only that if the police really can determine who the occupants are supposed to be at an address, then prior to the SWAT call, it might be useful to say, who are the people here, who is the likely bomber, how do we most effectively separate them.
18 year old girl or the grandmother? Probably not likely bombers. We can probably isolate them safely at a grocery store, talk to them for a few minutes, determine if the grandfather is either a bomber or dangerous, then move to isolate him as needed.
That WAS my local news in Az. There is no doubt the police departments all over the nation are out of control, are ignoring human rights, etc. No doubt. There should be National or Federal level meeting on this subject.
Shano
I would not go so far as to declare they “kill innocent people all the time.” I would suggest not using a small sampling to describe every incident involving a SWAT team. It is helpful to recognize we live in an age of instant communication on a global scale, as opposed to the past when most news people read was local. It gives the impression there are examples of some tradgedy eveywhere when in fact it happened in a few incidents and now many media are covering it.
I will also let you know that most of the criteria for selection into a SWAT team are designed to bring in persons who have high levels of discipline compared to regular officers. Sure it doesn’t happen everywhere but in general this is the case. An agency would be foolish to allow a 21 year old rookie out of the academy into a SWAT team for this very reason. The last thing an agency wants is the loose cannon that you are concerned and comment about.
Anon:
In principle I can see that using lesser means to case a person might be appropriate. In this case, it would not have worked. The reason is that if you have a potential bomber, the LAST thing you want them to know is that the police are closing in on them. Many IEDs are detonated with cell phones and there have been incidents in the past where the bomber gets wind of the police closing on them they will “pusha da button” as Giuseppe Zangara might say.
BettyKath
You are correct the person responsible and present at the time of the search is given a copy of the search warrant (though in our state they are not given a copy of the affidavit to obtain the warrant but this is available in the discovery process). They are also given a copy of the inventory of the items seized. If the person is not present, it is posted on the location.
Why did we not get to see the SWAT team in action, especially the ones clustered facing the camera before the signal was given.
We did get one, here or elsewhere, done in Brooklyn.
Particularly vivid memory was all the overweight bottoms seen from below slowly grinding their way singlefile up the stairs. Some physical impediment retarded their progress. They were all panting before the climb started. Overweight and overage.
The local politician who had been invited to follow along and who fixed the film team for use in PR was particularly hilarious—-although he was said to enjoy local reknown—for what was unclear.
Brooklyn’s finest.
You know that I don’t like feeling like a Afghanistan villager, nor any other terrorist, just because there is an internet and some goons who got BAD instructions.
How do the police know who lives at an address? I get the impression from TV documentaries like CSI and Homicide that they have all this information.
Do they have such information? How do they get it?
In this case two grandparents apparently live in the house, along with maybe, their 18 year old granddaughter.
This invasion like others seems much more cheaply and less dangerously solved not by seeking out these people at their home, but waiting until they go to work, go shopping, or leave home.
10 guys in a SWAT exercise or 4 guys in two squad cars staking out the joint?
What’s cheaper? What’s less risky? What’s more likely? What’s probably going to be more effective?
Darren,
“Generally reports generated in the investigation of a crime might not be released until a partricular point in the judicial process. ”
Well, on Law and Order Lenny always gives the person in the house the warrant. : )
Thank god no dogs were killed in this publicity stunt.
Sorry Darren, the new militarized police make way too many mistakes to deserve the benefit of the doubt these days. They are out for action, balls to the wall, hell or high water no matter that they do not do even the most basic investigations.
The public is getting really disgusted with these ‘raids’ when they kill innocent people all the time. I wonder what the ratio is? Innocent victims of SWAT to real criminal threat?
We had a Iraqi veteran shot 60 times and killed in a mistake like this. It shows lack of training, lack of investigations, lack of common sense, etc: http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/05/18/iraq-war-veteran-jose-guerena-killed-by-arizona-swat-team/
One more issue. bringing a camera crew into such a mission as this makes me question whether or not they felt it was so inherently dangerous. If it was , no department would have allowed the camera person in for the reporter’s own safety. So if this was the case, then why was the SWAT brought in to begin with.
BettyKath
Generally reports generated in the investigation of a crime might not be released until a partricular point in the judicial process. Here, if they are subject to release or public disclosure, it is upon formal charging of a defendant. I wonder if it might be the case here. Or if it is convenient to drag their feet on it. I don’t know in this case either way.
My 2 cents I would say the SWAT response was warranted in the sense of taking down a possible terrorist because if the situation actually involved some nutcase or determined individual they could take out the entire team with a push of a button. The police in this regard do not know if it is or not but can’t take the chance with their own lives.
However, I would imagine some more investigation might be prudent to see if this was just a dumb script monkey kid and to lure him out and take him down less forcefully. But with remote detonation a possibility he cannot have even the slightest suspicion the police are about to get him.
I am not about freaking out like some people do about everything slightly suspicioius, but come on don’t make terrorist threats in a country that is in a war. Use some modicum of common sense.
Wow…. imagine a rogue clone to an unsecure WiFi network……. amazing things can happen….. would not the first response to have been to send an officer to the home to talk with the people first….. nah the military police are doing what they are trained for…..
Deny, Deny,, Deny. These officers and the city need to dig deep into their pockets and pay for this women’s damages. It needs to be a big number to convince these municipal idiots, that an investigation doesn’t mean attacking residents in their homes.
The cops won’t release the search warrant. Isn’t the warrant a matter of public record or at least available to those upon whom it is served? Or do SWAT teams not serve warrants, they just claim them?
Certainly the posted comments needed to be taken seriously but the cops need to get up to date on wifi. Mine comes with two ways to hook up. The one I use is password protected. The other is not. I haven’t put a password on it b/c others in the community may not be able to afford their own and it’s ok with me if they use it. I think their investigation could have included some undercover field time to determine if the residents were likely to be the ones with beef. SWAT teams too often are pumped to kill. Fortunately, this one wasn’t.
Dredd,
See it everyday everywhere. Don’t even have to leave
this blawg.
Shall we wager who will do it first on this thread?
With all respect to the blog, it’s just some of the denizens I am referring to, as a matter of free speech. Which the Professor says is secure here.
Egregious seems to be the mode word now for bothe bully worship and play pretend. What ever happened to blatant and flagrant, my old favos?
Wonder if this was sufficiently irascible and bilious for their tastes?
BTW, like your choice of designations. They connote well.
SWAT members keep their finger on the trigger and it accidently squeezes on occasion. Having a SWAT team near you is a risk factor.
One of the tenets of bully worship is play pretend.
Good police work eh? Let’s see how much that good police work costs that city.
Oops!!!! I assume that they’ll be paying for the mess they made after their screw up? Seems like thsi was more of a PR stunt rather than an anti-terrorism operation. That’s why they invited the camera crew to go after a supposedly dangerous individual. Was Seven Seagal there as well ?