Police shoot dog (again), executing house warrant....

Given that the dog didn't meet the police at the front door, I'd say it was very likely restrained in some manner, either in a crate or behind a closed door. It also sounded like the dog was wounded at first then shot repeatedly a few minutes later.

I've got to wonder what the criteria is for issuing a "no-knock" search warrant. With family present and no obvious druggie type behavior (no guns, no meth lab, etc) I can't see how the behavior of the police was justified.

We had a similar occurrence near here a few years ago when the raid went to the wrong address and roughed up a totally innocent family.
 
Last edited:
WTF!!!!! I've been there, done that, with ACTUAL ARMED BADGUYS and the dog ain't a damn threat. Did I mention the people I dealt with didn't speak much English? Stray hungry dogs won't understand it either, but we never had to shoot a F---in dog.
Don't get me wrong, the cops were there for some reason or another, but I cannot fathom why the dog had to be sacrificed in the execution of a search warrant. P's me off.
 
It's one of the fundamental failures in LE training in the US. Instead of treating people with respect, LE assumes guilt or at least freedom from consequences for their actions and acts poorly as a result. Innocent until proven guilty is a functional myth at the LE level.
 
Clark1961 said:
It's one of the fundamental failures in LE training in the US. Instead of treating people with respect, LE assumes guilt or at least freedom from consequences for their actions and acts poorly as a result. Innocent until proven guilty is a functional myth at the LE level.
Click to expand...

Same with a "threat." If the dog were actually biting, and not on the body armor, fine, but that does not (to me) constitute a legitimate threat when theres a whole stack (team) behind the jackass who shot the dog. Throw it to the ground, secure the threat...that does not mean kill it.
I PITY the idiot who kills my pet...all I'm gonna say there.
 
Shooting a dog is really bad but this was worse. Killing an optometrist for internet gambling. He was set up by the detective who shot him.

With the SWAT team at the ready just behind him, Baucom waited outside Culosi's home in an SUV. As Culosi emerged from the doorway, clad only in a t-shirt and jeans, SWAT officer Deval Bullock's finger apparently slipped to the trigger of his Heckler & Koch MP5 semiautomatic weapon, already aimed at the unarmed. The gun fired, releasing a bullet that entered Culosi's side, then ripped through his chest and struck his heart, killing him instantly.


 
I can't even watch that video...:no: If anyone had ever shot my Peg, they'd have had to shoot me, too, I think.

Of course, she was a creampuff... not sure if she'd really attack a person, even if they were hurting me or some member of her "extended pack". But a while back, a SWAT team did barge into our loft one night by mistake (invited by a gullible roommate; they were on the wrong floor, as it turned out)... I was out of town and Peg was staying with friends elsewhere, but I could just see it: "Rottweiler! OMG!" Bang bang bang!! :rolleyes2:

I've dealt with some dogs in my time who were definitely not interested in cooperating with my wishes, and who were ready, willing and able to hurt me, and I've never thought "gosh, I wish I had a gun right now..."

On the other hand, that thought has certainly crossed my mind when dealing with people, in similar situations. Humans are a lot tougher to read quickly and potentially way more dangerous than dogs, even when unarmed.
 
gismo said:
...

I've got to wonder what the criteria is for issuing a "no-knock" search warrant.

....
Click to expand...

They used to be difficult to get. In the last, let's say approximately 9.5 years, they've become much more common.

Summarized, to have a judge authorize a no-knock warrant, you (the affiant detective) just have to say "I think it's so dangerous that knocking on the door would expose me and/or my team to risk, or evidence might be destroyed."

I'm going to borrow from the Colo. Court of Appeals:

"To justify a no-knock entry, the police must have an objectively reasonable suspicion that knocking and announcing their presence, under the particular circumstances, would be dangerous or futile or that it would inhibit the effective investigation of a crime by, for example, allowing the destruction of evidence."

Here's a link to this particular case, it's section II.B of the opinion if you're interested.

http://www.cobar.org/opinions/opinion.cfm?opinionid=4697&courtid=1
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
They used to be difficult to get. In the last, let's say approximately 9.5 years, they've become much more common.

Summarized, to have a judge authorize a no-knock warrant, you (the affiant detective) just have to say "I think it's so dangerous that knocking on the door would expose me and/or my team to risk, or evidence might be destroyed."

I'm going to borrow from the Colo. Court of Appeals:

"To justify a no-knock entry, the police must have an objectively reasonable suspicion that knocking and announcing their presence, under the particular circumstances, would be dangerous or futile or that it would inhibit the effective investigation of a crime by, for example, allowing the destruction of evidence."

Here's a link to this particular case, it's section II.B of the opinion if you're interested.

http://www.cobar.org/opinions/opinion.cfm?opinionid=4697&courtid=1
Click to expand...

You know you are wrong on that David. The cops just go to the judge and say," we have this poor working stiff who wouldn't harm a fly and only smokes a little marijuana on the weekends to wind down, and we want to go bash down his door in the middle of the night and yank him out of bed." Then the judge says, "heck yea, I'll authorize that." Everyone knows that is how it really works.
 
I want to know how this video became public. I strongly doubt a reporter followed them in, and why would the police/swat team post such a video online just begging for people to complain about it?
 
Maxmosbey said:
You know you are wrong on that David. The cops just go to the judge and say," we have this poor working stiff who wouldn't harm a fly and only smokes a little marijuana on the weekends to wind down, and we want to go bash down his door in the middle of the night and yank him out of bed." Then the judge says, "heck yea, I'll authorize that." Everyone knows that is how it really works.
Click to expand...

Only in Iowa, Max, only in Iowa. ;)
 
Clark1961 said:
It's one of the fundamental failures in LE training in the US. Instead of treating people with respect, LE assumes guilt or at least freedom from consequences for their actions and acts poorly as a result. Innocent until proven guilty is a functional myth at the LE level.
Click to expand...
Well put, and this is a very US specific problem. Most other developed nations have police who wear silly hats and are respectful and courteous. They also still get the job done.
 
One of the reasons for this type of ignorant behavior, is how fast police departments expanded over the last 15 years and how many officers have been hired who wouldn't have been considered when departments didn't exist just to grow larger.

I believe there are only so many people competent to do that job in any given community and between various types affirmative hiring, and budgets that skyrocketed, departments kept hiring after the pool thinned out.
 
Florida Cracker said:
One of the reasons for this type of ignorant behavior, is how fast police departments expanded over the last 15 years and how many officers have been hired who wouldn't have been considered when departments didn't exist just to grow larger.

I believe there are only so many people competent to do that job in any given community and between various types affirmative hiring, and budgets that skyrocketed, departments kept hiring after the pool thinned out.
Click to expand...
I blame it on television.
 
gismo said:
We had a similar occurrence near here a few years ago when the raid went to the wrong address and roughed up a totally innocent family.
Click to expand...

In PG county they roughed up the mayor of one of the incorporated towns (and shot his dog) after UPS gave them the wrong address.

winning !! the war on drugs :hairraise:
 
weilke said:
In PG county they roughed up the mayor of one of the incorporated towns (and shot his dog) after UPS gave them the wrong address.

winning !! the war on drugs :hairraise:
Click to expand...

PG county has had...ongoing problems when it comes to things like government conduct. Speaking of strictly law enforcement issues, there have been ongoing problems, some resulting in death(s?).
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
PG county has had...ongoing problems when it comes to things like government conduct. Speaking of strictly law enforcement issues, there have been ongoing problems, some resulting in death(s?).
Click to expand...

PG county IS an ongoing problem ;) .

We have plenty of PG county cops as customers. Individually, they are nice people, as a department they seem to turn into a marauding mob at times.
 
Your freedoms (in this case, from unreasonable search and seizure) sacrificed on the altar of the War on Drugs. We're becoming a Police State, and nobody cares.
 
Some SWAT teams are much more capable than others. In recent years many smaller police departments, often with the help of government grants, have formed part time SWAT units composed of inexperienced and inadequately trained members. Ideally a SWAT team should be composed of highly trained and disciplined individuals, preferably former military with combat experience. Give Barney Fife an AR15 and anything can happen.

http://www.theagitator.com/2010/05/14/more-militarized-than-the-military/
 
steingar said:
Your freedoms (in this case, from unreasonable search and seizure) sacrificed on the altar of the War on Drugs. We're becoming a Police State, and nobody cares.
Click to expand...
Law enforcement can't afford to win the war on drugs. There is too much money involved fighting it.
 
Gary F said:
Some SWAT teams are much more capable than others. In recent years many smaller police departments, often with the help of government grants, have formed part time SWAT units composed of inexperienced and inadequately trained members. Ideally a SWAT team should be composed of highly trained and disciplined individuals, preferably former military with combat experience. Give Barney Fife an AR15 and anything can happen.

http://www.theagitator.com/2010/05/14/more-militarized-than-the-military/
Click to expand...
You can thank Ronald Reagan for that.
 
Maxmosbey said:
You can thank Ronald Reagan for that.
Click to expand...
Why? Did he invent the Department of Homeland Security?

The preparedness of State and Local SWAT teams is one of the major initiatives of the United States Department of Homeland Security. Under the Department of Homeland Security typing system, there are three typing classifications ranging from a Type III team (the basis of this course), to a Type I team, the most equipped and capable. The typing system has been created to flow with the overall Incident Command System (ICS) structure. In response to the Department of Homeland Security’s creation of the SWAT Team Typing system, the Government Training Institute (GTI), has created three advanced courses for SWAT teams.
State and local law enforcement agencies can utilize Department of Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP) funds to pay for the course.

http://www.gtitraining.org/course_listing_type3swat.htm
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Maxmosbey said:
You can thank Ronald Reagan for that.
Click to expand...

I thought Nixon started it...the whole "public enemy number one" thing. Reagan gave it a name and and budget. We the People are at fault for leaving the dog off a leash. The video says so much about an awfully broad range of different topics. I am all about keeping an "everyone goes home" mentality, but a career LEO with an itchy trigger finger forgot he was wearing body armor and had a whole team behind him. The idiot should be fired from SWAT, as he embarrassed himself, his unit, his department, and any other self-respecting LEO accross the country.
And all this crap...for WHAT?:mad2:
 
airbornejohnny said:
I thought Nixon started it...the whole "public enemy number one" thing. Reagan gave it a name and and budget. We the People are at fault for leaving the dog off a leash. The video says so much about an awfully broad range of different topics. I am all about keeping an "everyone goes home" mentality, but a career LEO with an itchy trigger finger forgot he was wearing body armor and had a whole team behind him. The idiot should be fired from SWAT, as he embarrassed himself, his unit, his department, and any other self-respecting LEO accross the country.
And all this crap...for WHAT?:mad2:
Click to expand...
Nixon started the "war on drugs" and that is a separate issue for the SZ. As our unfortunate gambling optometrist proved you do not need to be a drug dealer to be on the receiving end of a trigger happy LEO. I am most concerned with the proliferation of amateur SWAT teams. A traffic cop given minimal training and dressed up in tactical gear can be very dangerous.
 
airbornejohnny said:
I thought Nixon started it...the whole "public enemy number one" thing. Reagan gave it a name and and budget. We the People are at fault for leaving the dog off a leash. The video says so much about an awfully broad range of different topics. I am all about keeping an "everyone goes home" mentality, but a career LEO with an itchy trigger finger forgot he was wearing body armor and had a whole team behind him. The idiot should be fired from SWAT, as he embarrassed himself, his unit, his department, and any other self-respecting LEO accross the country.
And all this crap...for WHAT?:mad2:
Click to expand...
It was during the Reagan administration that the government started providing equipment and training to law enforcement. A lot of the training was military training. The equipment was all military equipment from DMRO. Cities with populations under 85,000 could get just about anything they wanted. We used to raid the Ofutt Air Force DMRO on a regular basis. We even got an old Dodge Ram ambulance one time, filled it with BDUs, web gear, helmets, night vision goggles, boots, and six M-16s and drove it back to Ames. Everything was supposed to remain the property of the US government, but I'm sure they never asked for anything back. We painted the Ram and made it a mobile command post. One time I was over at the DMRO and they had artillery spotter binoculars with range finders in them. I asked if I could put a pair on the list. The guy there asked me how many I wanted. I came home with six pairs. A couple of us went to Fort Leonardwood for a surveillance school. We ended up bringing a whole trunk load of electronic surveillance equipment home. When the first Bush came into office, they really tightened up on it. Before that though it was like Christmas all year around.
 
Clark1961 said:
It's one of the fundamental failures in LE training in the US. Instead of treating people with respect, LE assumes guilt or at least freedom from consequences for their actions and acts poorly as a result. Innocent until proven guilty is a functional myth at the LE level.
Click to expand...
You have it backwards. Courts deal with innocent until proven guilty. Cops deal with probable cause.
 
Maxmosbey said:
You have it backwards. Courts deal with innocent until proven guilty. Cops deal with probable cause.
Click to expand...

Read it again. I note that LE doesn't deal with innocent until proven guilty.

Like I said already, there is a serious training problem in US LE.
 
Gary F said:
Some SWAT teams are much more capable than others. In recent years many smaller police departments, often with the help of government grants, have formed part time SWAT units composed of inexperienced and inadequately trained members. Ideally a SWAT team should be composed of highly trained and disciplined individuals, preferably former military with combat experience. Give Barney Fife an AR15 and anything can happen.

http://www.theagitator.com/2010/05/14/more-militarized-than-the-military/
Click to expand...
It isn't Barney Fife with an AR-15, it is the kind of training that they were getting, and then it is the culture that grew out of it. First of all, your assertion that former military somehow makes a person a better SWAT member is not true. There are lots of former military people among the ranks that you like to refer to as Barney FIfe. Ex military people gravitate to law enforcement. The guy who shot that dog could very well have been an x-marine for all you know. They are no different than anyone else. In fact, often times they need to be reminded that they are not at war anymore. It all stems from my earlier post about the Reagan years. In the eighties we were going to various military bases for training. I remember checking in at Offutt for a class that was supposed to be on how to safely enter and clear a building. The lady that checked us in said, "you're here for the urban warfare class." There were probably ten LE people and at least that many military. That was the period of time where police departments started going paramilitary.
 
Clark1961 said:
Read it again. I note that LE doesn't deal with innocent until proven guilty.

Like I said already, there is a serious training problem in US LE.
Click to expand...
I read it again, and I guess you lost me again. I don't know what you what you are trying to say by "Innocent until proven guilty is a functional myth at the LE level." I will agree with you however that training is the problem.
 
Maxmosbey said:
It isn't Barney Fife with an AR-15, it is the kind of training that they were getting, and then it is the culture that grew out of it. First of all, your assertion that former military somehow makes a person a better SWAT member is not true. There are lots of former military people among the ranks that you like to refer to as Barney FIfe. Ex military people gravitate to law enforcement. The guy who shot that dog could very well have been an x-marine for all you know. They are no different than anyone else. In fact, often times they need to be reminded that they are not at war anymore. It all stems from my earlier post about the Reagan years. In the eighties we were going to various military bases for training. I remember checking in at Offutt for a class that was supposed to be on how to safely enter and clear a building. The lady that checked us in said, "you're here for the urban warfare class." There were probably ten LE people and at least that many military. That was the period of time where police departments started going paramilitary.
Click to expand...
I served with the 101st ABN for two years and most of the soldiers in light infantry units were highly disciplined and well trained for urban combat. I agree that prior military experience does not guarantee results but I will take these guys over a traffic cop who attended a SWAT course. There are plenty of losers in the military but they do not last long in an elite infantry unit if they ever make it there in the first place.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Maxmosbey said:
I read it again, and I guess you lost me again. I don't know what you what you are trying to say by "Innocent until proven guilty is a functional myth at the LE level." I will agree with you however that training is the problem.
Click to expand...

We are all guilty in the eyes of cops from the get go.

Example (and I have the police video to prove it):
I was on my motorcycle following a line of cars on a 2 lane road which was turning into a 4 lane divided. I turn off at the next road, make one more turn, and there's lights in my mirrors. I pull over and he pulls in behind me. I'm clueless as to why I'm pulled over and I point to myself, he nods yes. I shut off the bike and take off my helmet:

"Good afternoon."
"You know why i pulled you over?"
"Not a clue."
"You were doing 73 in a 55."
"No, I was not, I've been riding all day and never been more than 5 over."
"I could have you arrested right now!"
(Really, that's your first response as a 'Server and Protector' ? These are the douchebags that are out there.)
"On what charge? Reckless driving? First I need to be going more than 20 over for that, which I wasn't, and even if I was going 73, that's only 18 over, so you still have nothing to arrest me with."

He stammered after that and tried to make up some other BS.

But I was guilty as far as the cop was concerned. The only thing I was guilty of was being smarter than him - which doesn't take much when you have morons like that running around. In court he couldn't even explain how his RADAR gun operated - and we give them guns? WTF.

The cops own in car video showed I wasn't going 73, and that I was going the same speed as the 6 cars in front of me - 57, like I said less than 5 over.
 
Last edited:
EdFred said:
We are all guilty in the eyes of cops from the get go.

Example (and I have the police video to prove it):
I was on my motorcycle following a line of cars on a 2 lane road which was turning into a 4 lane divided. I turn off at the next road, make one more turn, and there's lights in my mirrors. I pull over and he pulls in behind me. I'm clueless as to why I'm pulled over and I point to myself, he nods yes. I shut off the bike and take off my helmet:

"Good afternoon."
"You know why i pulled you over?"
"Not a clue."
"You were doing 73 in a 55."
"No, I was not, I've been riding all day and never been more than 5 over."
"I could have you arrested right now!"
(Really, that's your first response as a 'Server and Protector' ? These are the douchebags that are out there.)
"On what charge? Reckless driving? First I need to be going more than 20 over for that, which I wasn't, and even if I was going 73, that's only 18 over, so you still have nothing to arrest me with."

He stammered after that and tried to make up some other BS.

But I was guilty as far as the cop was concerned. The only thing I was guilty of was being smarter than him - which doesn't take much when you have morons like that running around. In court he couldn't even explain how his RADAR gun operated - and we give them guns? WTF.

The cops own in car video showed I wasn't going 73, and that I was going the same speed as the 6 cars in front of me - 57, like I said less than 5 over.
Click to expand...


Wow. That is pretty ridiculous.

We have a "donut day" at work, where, every week someone takes turns bringing in donuts. If I got pulled over, with several boxes of donuts on my passenger seat and I got pulled over.... I'd have to be really careful with what i say....

"Good afternoon."
"You know why i pulled you over?"
"Could you smell them?" (As I point to the donuts)


I don't think I actually would do that.... but would be a funny story
 
Gary F said:
I served with the 101st ABN for two years and most of the soldiers in light infantry units were highly disciplined and well trained for urban combat. I agree that prior military experience does not guarantee results but I will take these guys over a traffic cop who attended a SWAT course. There are plenty of losers in the military but they do not last long in an elite infantry unit if they ever make it there in the first place.
Click to expand...

+100!!!
I served with 82nd ABN for three, one of which was Iraq. Most of the Elmer Fudds and Barney Fifes I saw were not even combat arms (THANK F'n GOD) let alone Infantry.
Former military alone is no "qualifier" IMHO. Keep in mind that as a PFC (E-3) on a zeroing range I had to politely educate a SFC (E-7) that elevation for zeroing the M16/M4 is performed with the front sight post, NOT the rear peep sight (I also had to resist the urge to choke slam the NCO into last century). Most civilians see E-7/SFC as "knows their S..t,"(AND PFC's as 'stupid pawns') and would not expect such a B.A.S.I.C. soldiering skill to have perished in that much time in the military. Talk about a disclaimer eh?:rolleyes2:
IMO this applies just as much to LEO's. Just because they're on Popshotville's SWAT team does not mean squat. "Show me your proficiency."
 
The worst offenders are officers that never had much experience, other than Miami Vice, Hill Street Blues and Barney Miller. there are a lot of people wearing uniforms that have little real world experience, trying to be just as tough as they think the next guy, might be.
Add to that officers hired to meet some quota, or other, rather than for their inteligence, suitabiltiy for service, or special skills and then you have the ones that can't wait to shoot someone, or so they say, quietly and only half in jest.
Add to that supervisors with out sufficient experience, or skills an you have a classic balls up hurting someone, who didn't deserve any of their special attentions.
 
Wow, is training that bad outside Ohio?

My Fiance is in the Academy now and they like to show clips from "Cops" or "Police Women of Cincinnati" and point out where the officer overstepped.
 
One day these ding bats are going to cross some invisible line and people are going to be so angry that change of tactics and behavior will be quick and painful, especially for the moron that gave the order.
In this instance, everything was over the top and the idiots at the DOE know it. The way these people fail to apply simple intelligence to their jobs makes you want to water them twice a week and make sure they get indirect sunlight.
 
Can someone tell me why this has become an American cliche? Really pathetic.

'Roid Rage?
 
Most of it happens in areas of low socioeconomic value. In other words, most occurs to the poor, and nobody cares about it until the cops accidently hit a non-poor house.

The Police State Cometh.
 
steingar said:
Most of it happens in areas of low socioeconomic value. In other words, most occurs to the poor, and nobody cares about it until the cops accidently hit a non-poor house.

The Police State Cometh.
Click to expand...

I agree but with one caveat.

The Police State is Here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top