2nd Court of Appeals rules SWAT team cannot claim immunity

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • rob-cubed

    In need of moderation
    Sep 24, 2009
    5,387
    Holding the line in Baltimore
    While I believe SWAT teams have a place in modern policing, the risk of liability for using excessive force will hopefully have departments applying more scrutiny regarding how and when such tactics should be used:
    http://news.yahoo.com/u-court-not-block-lawsuits-over-connecticut-swat-233911169.html

    The police settled with the family of the man who was killed, and it sounds a bit like the man who survived has a bit of a frivolous lawsuit since he is claiming PTSD damages. But on principle I think this is the right decision.
     

    Afrikeber

    Ultimate Member
    Jan 14, 2013
    6,688
    Urbana, Md.
    Wow read the story. Burst in the house assuming a no knock warrant and shot him six times while sitting in his chair in the home. I ask
    Myself if Im in my home and SWAT kicks in my door with a no knock warrant and I shoot thinking it is a home invasion am I guilty of anything? Assuming I'm not guilty of anything alleged and I survive the gun battle.
     

    StantonCree

    Watch your beer
    Jan 23, 2011
    23,932
    Wow read the story. Burst in the house assuming a no knock warrant and shot him six times while sitting in his chair in the home. I ask
    Myself if Im in my home and SWAT kicks in my door with a no knock warrant and I shoot thinking it is a home invasion am I guilty of anything? Assuming I'm not guilty of anything alleged and I survive the gun battle.

    I've met the SWAT team in MoCo at an awards ceremony in VA......your not surviving
     

    Half-cocked

    Senior Meatbag
    Mar 14, 2006
    23,937
    The police settled with the family of the man who was killed, and it sounds a bit like the man who survived has a bit of a frivolous lawsuit since he is claiming PTSD damages. But on principle I think this is the right decision.

    Wait - what?

    This isn't a "website owner won't let me be an IP, and it's not fair" lawsuit.

    This is a case where police busted into someone's house, and gunned down his unarmed friend right in front of him, over a bogus hunt for nonexistent drugs.
     

    teratos

    My hair is amazing
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Jan 22, 2009
    59,775
    Bel Air
    Wait - what?

    This isn't a "website owner won't let me be an IP, and it's not fair" lawsuit.

    This is a case where police busted into someone's house, and gunned down his unarmed friend right in front of him, over a bogus hunt for nonexistent drugs.


    I think PTSD is fair in this instance. It is quite possible the friend pisses himself every time he sees a cop. Not frivolous, IMO.
     

    Inigoes

    Head'n for the hills
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 21, 2008
    49,365
    SoMD / West PA
    Its about friggin time the courts instituted some common sense measures.

    The amount of force should be commencerate with the theat.
     

    teratos

    My hair is amazing
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Jan 22, 2009
    59,775
    Bel Air
    Its about friggin time the courts instituted some common sense measures.

    The amount of force should be commencerate with the theat.


    ....and if you are going in with guns blazing, you better be 100% correct 100% of the time. There is no room for error.
     

    Inigoes

    Head'n for the hills
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 21, 2008
    49,365
    SoMD / West PA
    ....and if you are going in with guns blazing, you better be 100% correct 100% of the time. There is no room for error.

    Exactly

    Hopefully, this will reduce the number of "SWATing" incidents. Where the police are are being used as pawns in a revenge plot.
     

    rob-cubed

    In need of moderation
    Sep 24, 2009
    5,387
    Holding the line in Baltimore
    Wait - what?

    This isn't a "website owner won't let me be an IP, and it's not fair" lawsuit.

    This is a case where police busted into someone's house, and gunned down his unarmed friend right in front of him, over a bogus hunt for nonexistent drugs.

    I don't doubt that he is legitimately scarred from what happened. But PTSD, like back pain or whiplash, is one of those nebulous afflictions that is hard to quantify or award a settlement against.

    This ruling cuts both ways. The state should be held accountable for excessive use of force, at the same time this opens the door to frivolous lawsuits. Calling this particular lawsuit frivolous was jumping the gun on my part. But there WILL be such lawsuits in the future, at the taxpayer's expense.
     

    Tyeraxus

    Ultimate Member
    May 15, 2012
    1,165
    East Tennessee
    Saw this on Volokh earlier. Bad juju all around. Apparently two cops raised questions about why SWAT was involved during planning, and were ignored. Planners misrepresented the homeowner as violent and armed, because he'd had an earlier run in with police (non violent, cooperative, but asked how long he'd be gone so he could arrange care for it), had a registered pistol (out of state at a relative's house), and was supposedly barricaded in his house (somebody shot out his windows so he had them plyboarded up). Tac plan called for officers in the front to knock and announce while cops in the rear tossed flashbangs, and if no answer at the door, bust the door in and flashbang as an officer with a shield and glock entered. They busted the door approximately five seconds after the rear flashbangs went off (no real time to knock and announce) and the they flashbanged their own guy as he ran in. He thought he was 'taking fire' and shot the homeowner.

    Regardless of what you think about no knocks, this was an example of how NOT to do one.
     

    El Patron Grande

    Banned
    BANNED!!!
    Wow read the story. Burst in the house assuming a no knock warrant and shot him six times while sitting in his chair in the home. I ask
    Myself if Im in my home and SWAT kicks in my door with a no knock warrant and I shoot thinking it is a home invasion am I guilty of anything? Assuming I'm not guilty of anything alleged and I survive the gun battle.

    Well it sort of happened in the case below. Mind you that the guy may have had the deck stacked against him: Black guy vs. Cop.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cory_Maye

    Best action is not to move, let the cop/swat do their thing and then, if the entry was illegal or the warrant issued upon illegal evidence, you can sue the living hell out of the City/County/State.
     

    jrwhitt

    Active Member
    May 27, 2012
    282
    op/swat do their thing and then, if the entry was illegal or the warrant issued upon illegal evidence, you can sue the living hell out of the City/County/State.


    And how can you tell whether it's a SWAT raid or a Home Invasion when both are shouting and causing chaos. Nothing prevents ANYONE from shouting POLICE

    **I** certainly would NOT be expecting a SWAT raid and so would assume a Home Invasion in progress (which are getting more frequent in my area).
     

    fabsroman

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 14, 2009
    35,852
    Winfield/Taylorsville in Carroll
    I don't doubt that he is legitimately scarred from what happened. But PTSD, like back pain or whiplash, is one of those nebulous afflictions that is hard to quantify or award a settlement against.

    This ruling cuts both ways. The state should be held accountable for excessive use of force, at the same time this opens the door to frivolous lawsuits. Calling this particular lawsuit frivolous was jumping the gun on my part. But there WILL be such lawsuits in the future, at the taxpayer's expense.

    Not if the police don't gun down unarmed people in front of other people.

    Ironic how everybody thinks the 9 year old will be scarred for life and have mental issues to deal with after she accidentally shot the instructor to death. However, a guy standing next to his buddy that is lit up not once, not twice, not thrice, ....... but six times by SWAT and killed, isn't supposed to be having any mental issues and his claim is bogus? I would be turning over every night thinking, "That could have been me shot six times, bleeding out on the floor, and dead."

    Hell, I used to have nightmares of SWAT storming my townhouse after we came home the night after our wedding to find MoCo blocked off the parking lot, had the neighbor on the curb in her pajamas, and had latex gloves on while searching her vehicle and questioning a guy in an Escalade. Found out she was selling crack out of the townhouse and I was tossing and turning for a couple years, 3.5 to be exact, worrying that SWAT might get my house confused with another crack dealer's in the development. Cannot imagine the nightmares I would suffer if something like that actually happened and somebody in my household was shot to death.
     

    Maestro Pistolero

    Active Member
    Mar 20, 2012
    876
    I hate to say it, but only when the cost of dynamic, or no-knock entries becomes greater than the benefit will this stuff cease. There was a double home invasion in Las Vegas about a month ago that happened on my street. Until I know differently, I'm assuming it's an intruder and dealing accordingly.

    I am always troubled with I see AR15's pointed at the heads of nonviolent suspects or their families. I see that approach as way more dangerous, way more of a threat to public safety than a pot dealer, for example. I really think we need to revisit the priorities if this area.

    If I were the target of law-enforcement, I don't care for what reason, call ahead, and I'll put on some coffee, but bust through my door unannounced at your own risk.
     

    fabsroman

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 14, 2009
    35,852
    Winfield/Taylorsville in Carroll
    The towns claim that their SWAT unit did not use excessive force or violate the victims Constitutional Rights.

    Somehow, I find that hard to believe when they shot one guy, 6 times, and killed him, hit another guy in the head with a gun, and found absolutely no guns in the premises and only a small amount of drugs.

    Kudos to the 2nd Circuit on this one.
     

    DAMUE

    Active Member
    Aug 31, 2012
    196
    Pasadena
    And how can you tell whether it's a SWAT raid or a Home Invasion when both are shouting and causing chaos. Nothing prevents ANYONE from shouting POLICE

    **I** certainly would NOT be expecting a SWAT raid and so would assume a Home Invasion in progress (which are getting more frequent in my area).

    Exactly! There have been numerous instances of armed gangs busting into peoples homes dressed like SWAT and yelling "Police". Once they have the residence secured they move forward with their plans. It is normally getting the homeowner to give up the location of the valuables but they also beat, rape and kill. Just telling people to comply is not an answer when you don't know who REALLY is busting in your door in the middle of the night.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,930
    Messages
    7,259,487
    Members
    33,350
    Latest member
    Rotorboater

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom