Posted on 01/18/2011 2:17:18 PM PST by darkside321
Utah police shot and killed a man within seconds of storming his parents' home, video of the raid shows. The police had a warrant to search for drugs, but found only a small amount of pot and an empty vial that had apparently contained meth.
Local media report that Todd Blair, 45, was a drug addict rather than a dealer, according to friends and family.
In the video, Blair can be seen holding a golf club above his head as police smash through his door. Within seconds, without demanding Blair drop the iron or lay down, Weber-Morgan Strike Force Sgt. Troy Burnett fires three shots into him. The local prosecutor has deemed the killing justified, but his family is planning a federal lawsuit, arguing that police had plenty of alternatives.
Blair's death raises the question of why multiple heavily-armed officers were sent to raid a drug addict -- and why Weber and Morgan counties in Utah would even need a "Narcotics Strike Force." Local police forces are able to keep to property they seize in drug raids, often without the necessity of a conviction, creating a perverse incentive to reinvest in military equipment and carry out additional raids.
The killer, Sgt. Burnett, had previously told a law-enforcement magazine that he and fellow officers were trained to shoot quickly and at close range. Burnett had previously put the training to use by shooting and killing an armed suspect in 2008.
"Maybe a month before this [2008 shooting], we did our qualification and this kind of scenario was played out in live fire training where we had to quickly draw and fire at close range," Burnett said at the time. "It wasn't quite identical, but it was close...
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnewsmania.com ...
A shotgun? Against body armor? A slug would probably break some major ribs and make the guy WISH he were dead.
Ok well then I apologize
>Cops should have stayed home that day. Didn’t do much “protecting the public.”
>I guess they “felt that their life was in danger.”
>Whenever you encounter a cop: MAKE SURE HE FEELS SAFE.
>When I was a kid, it was the job of the police to make the public feel safe. Somehow or other, that got turned around.
So, I should offer them some milk and cookies and perhaps a warm blanket?
So, I should offer them some milk and cookies and perhaps a warm blanket?
My brother and I used to talk about how a guy with a shotgun and some modified shells could kill more than half of the Justice League (kryptonite shell-Superman, yellow slug- Geen Lantern, buckshot - Wonderwoman (block THAT with your bracers!)).
Ok, break out the pocket protectors I AM a geek!
But alas, it will be all wiped out by the "oh shit" moment, when the choir notices he forgot to kill the dog.
FWIW-
” I was not impressed with this SWAT team. No reason to shoot. 8+ man team and the guy was armed with a stick, err, golf club. Pu$$ies!”
But everyone hates intermediate weapons like the taser....
Wow. Just damn. The fact that a cop isn’t going to prison, and a squad isn’t being disbanded over this is truly amazing to me. Murder. State sanctioned murder.
If you hit the head a shotgun is effective! “your” helmet will not protect you! But then again i have my steyr aug at home. A .223 full metal jacket will penetrate every police armor.
Not that it would help me this much (because i still would get killed if swat storms my house) but at least i would die knowing that i took one of this “nazis” with me.
>>This is precisely the reason for my discomfort at the roadside License / Insurance / Registration checkpoints that seem to be in vogue today. By design, that technique assumes GUILT by the drivers randomly on that route and exclusively allows passage once credentials are examined.
>
>I don’t like these either. But at least there is some plausible justification based upon the notion that driving is a licensed activity. Occupying ones own home is in no way similar.
That’s where you’re wrong.
In 2005, there was a case called Kelo v. New London in which the US Supreme Court ruled in favor of the city of New London. What had happened was New London had used eminent-domain to take Kelo’s house, which as I understand had no outstanding tax-debt, in order to turn the property over to a private developer. The justification the city gave for using eminent-domain on behalf of this private entity for fulfilling the “for public use” clause of the 5th Amendment was that a *projected* increase in tax-revenue from the private-developer’s project.
Put another way, the Supreme Court said that it is well-and-good for a government entity to take your house/property and give it to someone else because they THINK that it will generate more taxes. This means that you live in your own home only at the pleasure of the government.
Of course, I would love to see the members of the 2005 USSC brought up on charges of Conspiracy Against Rights for this incident:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000241——000-.html
The problem is that so many people believe that the Constitution is whatever the Supreme Court says it is, which is a logical absurdity because 1) the Constitution establishes the Supreme Court (and denies the ability of that court to amend or alter the Constitution) and 2) the Justices take an oath to support the Constitution; if the Constitution is whatever they say it is then that oath is to merely support/agree with whatever they say.
ML/NJ
ML/NJ
Ah yes, the ever versatile shotgun! An answer to every problem. But with conventional rounds, a shotgun is not too effective against body armor.
I agree, and my first choice would be something in .308 or better for this kind of threat. However if all you have is the 12 ga, then you do have a few options beyond conventional rounds. That's all I was trying to point out.
Sure it does; if you have no right to your house then the government can arbitrarily say that it’s not your house and then claim that the 4th doesn’t protect you because you were not in your own home.... granted to do this they would need to ‘retrospectively’ lay claim to your house, but I do not think that that would hinder them much.
{My cynical opinion.}
That is great advice, on the level of the individual, for living one’s life. But it’s a non-sequitur in regard to Constitutional principles and what we feel is appropriate behavior from government authorities. Even people who break the law should be afforded a reasonable protection of their civil rights. Especially when you consider that there are so many laws now that everyone is breaking at least one at any given time.
The heavier armor available is why I have several hundred rounds of 7.62x51 API. If the tungsten core doesn't get you, the 3,000 degree incendiary will. And if I live long enough, no body armor in existence stops a .338 at close range. Head shots are the best option, but I doubt you will have time to aim that well. Dark, the invaders have probably thrown their 'diversion' devices (nice euphemism for flash grenade), and you are the one caught off-guard, not them. The only thing that will save you is something that throws them off their well rehearsed invasion rhythm.
Introduce confusion and panic. That is what they are counting on you being consumed with. Return the favor, and you have a chance, however small, of winning the engagement.
“The only thing that will save you is something that throws them off their well rehearsed invasion rhythm.”
Good advice. This guy might still be alive if he had an extra 5 seconds to figure out what was going on.
What a world we live in.
Well sorry but a .223 FMJ fired from an assault rifle at close range is lethal. There is a chance that the “armor” will stop it (even the more powered 7,62) but this is far away from given, Again we are talking about military armor! and not civilian or police body armor. 2 or 3 hits from a .223 asault (at close range) rifle will kill you no matter what body armor you where.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.